Clarisse Thorn

I write and speak about subcultures, sexuality, and new media.

UPDATE, September 2012: The Field Report that I linked below was just modified in response to criticism. (The author showed up at my blog and talked about it with us here at Comment #80.) I still have serious problems with the author’s attitudes, but I will admit that the post is better than it used to be; he’s trying to build a career, so perhaps he took my point that asshole PUAs will be frozen out of the market. The excerpts that I quote below were accurate when I quoted them, and I stand by everything I said.

* * *

When I wrote my awesome book Confessions of a Pickup Artist Chaser, I did my best to present a relatively balanced picture of the pickup artist (PUA) subculture. I tried to show good facets, bad facets, and shades-of-grey facets. Perhaps inevitably, a lot of people — some of whom I respect — felt that I was over-generous to this strange mix of analytical nerds, hedonists, entrepreneurs, and misogynist assholes. Others felt that I was over-judgmental.

Many feminists claim that the culture, mores, and/or tactics within the PUA community encourage rape. In my book, I quote one feminist who said: “I’m just going to come right out and say it: PUAs rape women through coercion and manipulation. Full stop.” I think that’s an overblown blanket statement rooted in a simplistic view of the community. But also in my book, I described a written report from one PUA in which he basically documented a date rape. And after I published the book, a reader sent me a link to one of the more unsettling PUA forum threads I’ve seen (thanks Jon).

I would’ve broken this thread down in the book if I’d seen it before publication. I didn’t, so I’m breaking it down for you now. I do want to start with two important caveats:

A. This does not represent all PUAs. Some guys really do get into the community because they’re having trouble figuring out answers to questions like, “How do I ask that cute girl in class for her number?” This kind of thing is, however, one reason that lots of guys who found decent advice in parts of the community won’t associate themselves with the community as a whole.

B. PUAs are not the only people who do this. PUAs did not invent this. Other people are doubtless out doing this. PUAs are just the ones who have jargon for it and document it publicly on message boards.

Here’s the thread. (It’s posted on the forum for Real Social Dynamics — for those of you who read The Game, that’s Tyler Durden a.k.a. Owen Cook’s company.) If you usually stop reading when there’s a trigger warning, you should probably stop reading now.

Let the games begin:

Thread title: Lie your way inside a womans vagina (People with morals DO NOT READ)

First sentence: When i pull girls and fuck them, i cheat, i lie, and i steal (their booze). And i feel good about it, cause in the end girls like to be outsmarted and physically and mentally dominated.

We’re off to a good start, and by “good start” I mean “this thread already makes me want to shoot myself in the face.” Sidenote: when I see words like “dominated” used in this context, I feel the immediate need to give everyone involved a lecture on S&M 101. Yes, some women are sexually submissive, but not all; also, submissive women still want to be respected, not generally treated like garbage. And since we’re talking about submissive heterosexual ladies, I’ll throw in a link to a piece of mine about men and feminism and dominance, too.

Onward! Next, the writer describes his main type of lady target: The retarded, drunk and fucking hot 18 years old. … Dont let the friends see you.

Pick someone drunk and inexperienced, and isolate her from her friends? I’m amazed how blatant this dude is about being an asshole. People, this is one reason we keep an eye on our drunk friends at nightclubs. While it’s not your fault if your friend gets in trouble, sometimes there’s a chance that you could provide support at a crucial time.

Also! A broader note on the nature of abuse: abusers very commonly seek to break their targets’ social connections.

Pace it a little bit so a vibe actually forms but never let her time to think, otherwise shea going to see her friends, and you’re done. Once you pulled her away from the friends, made out, and have a somewhat chill vibe going on (takes 15 -30mins), you say “this bar sucks, lets go to another bar”.

Based on this self-reported evidence, this guy is somewhat charming. Charming people can still be assholes and/or predators. And people, this is one reason that if a friend disappears at a nightclub, even for 15 minutes, we make sure we know where she is.

If she wants to know where it is, you say 2 min walk. … Once youre out, walk 2 blocks away from the bar. get in a cab and go to your house. If she objects, say its too cold/hot to walk./ Its just 5 min/i just wanna kiss/ can we kiss?/ ignore what she says and physically force her. If you cant verbally and physically dominate a drunk 18 yo girl that likes you, please kill yourself.

Outright lying in order to get a girl home is not an uncommon PUA tactic. It’s happened to me; I wrote about it in Confessions. (Spoiler: the PUA did not succeed in his goal.)

To get inside your house, tell her you need to get money before you guys go to the bar.

To all the women who might find themselves in this situation: If a guy tells you you’re going one place and you mysteriously end up in another with zero discussion, then firstly, let me tell you that it is not your fault. You don’t deserve to be dealing with this.

I suspect that for a lot of people in this moment, the big question would be “How the fuck do I get out of this in the lowest-stress way?” So, here’s a tactic for you: “Okay, you go up and get the money. I’ll stay here in the cab.”

Later in the thread, a PUA actually asks for advice on what to do if a woman does this. The original writer says that he would stay in the cab and make it a waiting game, basically. But it’s a cab, so he can’t make it too much of a waiting game, and you always have the option of saying “Look dude, I think I’m just gonna take this cab back to meet my friends at the original bar.”

Once inside, quickly take off your coat and shoes and put on some music, dim lights and pour yourseld a drink. In 1 min or less. Start making out, tell her youre gonna make her visit. Quickly take her to your room and if she says anything while you take off all your clothes, tell her to shut the fuck up, and make her go on her knees and suck your dick. Only worrt about taking off her clothes once youre fully naked and shes jerking you off or sucking your dick.

Shes young, shes drunk, she likes you.she wont resist. Or not a lot.

“She won’t resist. Or not a lot.” Christ. I wonder how this guy sleeps at night.

There’s more, but that’s all the important bits. Oh, and then there’s this comment from an instructor at Real Social Dynamics, responding to criticism of the original post:

We’re here to fuck girls not assuage hypothetical psychological wounds and/or better society. I’m frankly a little sick of KJ moralizing and hand wringing about this shit. Let’s not sugar coat what it is we are doing here too much. We’re FUCKING WOMEN.

Jargon time! KJ stands for “keyboard jockey,” a PUA term for a dude who does nothing but read PUA material and never puts it into practice. So basically, this instructor is saying that anyone who has a problem with that post is an inexperienced newbie.

Let’s not sugar coat what’s going on here too much. By any definition, tricking a drunk girl into coming home with you, and then forcibly having sex with her, is date rape.

Tyler Durden — again, the creator of Real Social Dynamics — also left a positive comment supporting the writer of that piece.

The gentleman who emailed me the link commented:

This points to an institutional problem. I found it especially depressing because a lot of what I had seen from RSD prior to that seemed more about honest communication and authenticity than other pick up stuff. So much for that.

There are several useful morals to be found here:

1. Just in case we needed it, this is more evidence that rape is often a crime with a lot of institutional/social support. When feminists talk about this, we call it “rape culture.” And why yes, before you ask, I have a chapter about rape culture and its PUA intersections in my book.

2. When relationships are framed as adversarial, and the only goal is “fucking women,” and ethics are dismissed as “handwringing” … then even a company that might otherwise be kind of decent will end up supporting awful stuff. Real Social Dynamics may, indeed, generally promote more honest communication and authenticity than other PUA companies. But as long as having sex is framed as an at-all-costs goal, this type of stuff will creep in. The only cure is to work towards reframing sex as a mutual journey, in which treating the other person like a person is utterly necessary.

3. On the bright side, PUA companies lose clients because of stuff like this. Decent men (which, I maintain, is most men) stop buying products from companies that are obviously full of assholes. As dating advice for men becomes more mainstream and acceptable, I’m hoping this will mean that unethical PUA companies will be relegated to a ghetto of “those guys are terrible people and no one serious pays attention to them.” (On the down side, they may actually develop a niche for that. But we can’t win ’em all.)

365 responses to “Rapey Pickup Artists: Analysis Of A Field Report”

Did you misread “18-year-old” as “8-year-old”? Women don’t go to bars to play tea party, and they don’t leave the bar with guys to look at their stamp collections. Proposing the “moral” of more Plausible Deniability for women and more Demonization of men is nothing new, it’s just more Patriarchy.

This kind of thing is, however, one reason that lots of guys who found decent advice in parts of the community won’t associate themselves with the community as a whole.

Word.

The story, both the OP and the comments, made me want to vomit, kick the guys in the balls and then ask them about their sexual and masculine self-concept. I mean, how “beta” must someone be to advocate rape in the name of getting off?

Here’s what I’ll say: these groups are not all bad, but the dynamics of the group do attract certain people – namely Narcissists and Psychopaths who have an agenda that fits perfectly with what Pick Up Artists do.

I guess, as with anything – we need to be savvy – and we also need to understand the difference between fun and coercion/manipulation. Does the other party know we are “PUAs” or are we hiding that and basically stalking prey?

Although there’s some truth to that, it’s worth expanding on what I mentioned earlier: even the paedophiles in the group were calling the guy out on his bullshit. And those are offenders who are usually considered to be untreatable.

That’s what’s at issue here. People in that forum — and Wilson, here — defending what paedophiles wouldn’t.

That’s the degree of fucked up involved.

It isn’t just a matter of people “fitting in” to the dynamic. It’s of people becoming so invested in it that they’re willing to embrace people that even convicts reject.

I’ve encountered two stories of men who used these exact tactics to get a girl home. One was a PUA whose story I told in Confessions. He and I had mutual friends, and at one point when I was like “I don’t know if I can trust you” he pointed out that we had mutual friends, and that because we had mutual friends, he wouldn’t mess with me. Which makes me wonder what would’ve happened if we hadn’t had mutual friends.

The other story I heard from a girl I met briefly. She said that a guy managed to get her back to his place by claiming that he would take her home, but she stayed near the doorway. He tried to do the “hey stay for a while” routine and she was like “No, I want to go home.” Eventually she argued enough (and was close enough to the door) that he just took her home rather than, I guess, actually physically forcing her.

Neither of the women involved in these stories were looking for “plausible deniability.”

Proposing the “moral” of more Plausible Deniability for women and more Demonization of men is nothing new, it’s just more Patriarchy.

I suppose one of the reasons why so many people have a hard time taking that argument seriously (even in the cases where it could be reasonably made) is that it is, as here, clearly not made in good faith. If you’re not even able to call the behaviour the that thread what it is, it’s not entirely unreasonable to assume you’re generally not arguing in good faith. Sorry.

Bex,

Here’s a clue: If a woman actually wants to go to your place and have sex with you… you won’t have to lie to her to get her there.

I suppose that could depend on the level of lying.

When a woman asked me if I would like to come up for a cup of coffee after I took her home after a party at 6am, she was also lying (and she actually confirmed it a year later, when she complained to me that I didn’t want to come up for a coffee that night). And I guess you could pull off a Lorenzo von Matterhorn and still get enthusiastic consent ;)

So, in my opinion, it’s not the lying per se that’s problematic, in my opinin – certain lies are permissible in love and war – it’s the display of utter disrespect and lack of empathy.

Providing a pretext that you’re both supposed to be aware of — which seems like what was going on with the “come up for coffee” situation that you mentioned — is something that’s potentially acceptable. The issue there is of making sure that you’re both aware of it.

More than being a matter of the level of lying, it’s one of if both people know that it is one, or if only one does, and the other gets blindsided or entrapped by it.

That’s the core of Wilson’s “tea party and stamp collection” statement, really: an argument that women don’t go out to bars, and don’t leave bars with men, with innocuous or non-sexual motives, so blindsiding and entrapment aren’t possible.

That’s the core of Wilson’s “tea party and stamp collection” statement, really: an argument that women don’t go out to bars, and don’t leave bars with men, with innocuous or non-sexual motives, so blindsiding and entrapment aren’t possible.

See, I think it’s reasonable to assume that most women are aware that interactions in clubs have the potential to become sexualised and that they, if they *agree* to go home with a guy, are aware that their going home with him is likely seen as very strong “indicator or interest”.

But that’s if they made that decision *on their own* – and that may even include the pretext of going to see a “stamp collection”. But in both cases mentioned above, both Clarisse and the girl in the field report did *not* make that decision – going to grab a sandwich somewhere else is not code for “you want to see my stamp collection”.

This wasn’t about misunderstanding a mixed coded signal, because they didn’t signal anything. I suppose both Clarisse and the girl from the field report assumed a sexual motive for the guys’ behaviour. BUT: what does that change? Not jumping out of a moving cab isn’t exactly code for “I want you”, and both the pua in Confessions and this guy were very much aware of that.

Right. Women go to bars for lots of reasons — hanging out with friends, meeting people, meeting men that they might want to go on a date with (not fuck right away). Sometimes they do it with the purpose of having sex, but that’s pretty rare. I think Mark Manson wrote at a post one point about how some study found that only 6% of women in clubs are there for the express purpose of getting laid.

I wouldn’t call “Do you want to come in for coffee?” a lie, especially not if coffee is actually served. That’s an invitation to continue the date. But a statement like, “We’re going to a bar, let me just dash into my house and grab money” is something totally different — it’s an actual lie that’s designed to make a girl actually believe that he won’t try to have sex with her.

One of them tried to start in on The Cube with me. Another used the “is kissing cheating” line. I forget what the other two did. They were all lines straight from books. When I said “no” to one of them, he kept going as if I hadn’t said it.

See, I think it’s reasonable to assume that most women are aware that interactions in clubs have the potential to become sexualised and that they, if they *agree* to go home with a guy, are aware that their going home with him is likely seen as very strong “indicator or interest”.

I’d agree with the phrasing in the second part; in the first, I might agree with it more if it were phrased as “potential to be read as sexualized,” rather than “become,” because, IME, that seems to be more common. (Though the “read as” can produce a dominantly one-sided “become.”) And I think that both of these points speak to the rape culture point in the OP.

As well as being spoken to by the kind of check-ins that Clarisse mentioned being done when something seems amiss.

I’m in agreement on the “this wasn’t about misunderstanding a mixed coded signal” point, though. For the most part; in Clarisse’s case, the intention was clear enough that no assumption was necessary, and in the other, sexual intent wouldn’t have been necessary to assume, because there was definitely enough to suggest threat even without it. (I’ve actually been called from and intervened in a situation like that one, myself.)

But as you wrote, it wouldn’t change the central issue. Not jumping out of a cab isn’t an indication of consent. Not getting up to leave when you have no way home isn’t an indication of consent. Not calling someone when you don’t have a phone isn’t an indication of consent.

And when someone writes, as the author of that post essentially did, in response to a comment, “if you can’t be bothered to do this, that’s how I know that you’re gay” — it’s perfectly damn clear what’s going on.

There’s no misreading involved. That’s encouragement to rape in order to prove that you’re a man.

@Lily:

Yeah, what’s strange is how this stuff seems to have spread, outside of the PUA scene. Don’t know if it’s derivative or not, but I’ve been hearing similar stories from a friend from out of state. Odd thing is, the patterns that she’s been talking about… they don’t quite match what one would expect from a lair.

More what one would expect if they were spreading through social networking.

the patterns that she’s been talking about… they don’t quite match what one would expect from a lair.

More what one would expect if they were spreading through social networking.

Entirely possible. I run into the “if they say no ignore it” thing quite often, and it’s often paired with the same flawed, entitled thinking that Wilson up above has — “why did you come to a munch if you’re not looking for someone?” or “why are you on Fetlife if you’re not looking for someone?”

I have two partners, and unless days become 36 hours long I’m not going to be looking for a new relationship. I go to munches and log on to Fetlife to socialize with friends.

I actually enjoy flirting enough that I’m waiting for the day when it becomes an Olympic sport, but this is a very poor substitute for flirting, which is not a mass-produced, cookie-cutter product; it should be artful and relevant to the individuals involved. It’s also spoiled, as so many things are, by an obsession with the destination rather than an appreciation of the journey.

There’s no misreading involved. That’s encouragement to rape in order to prove that you’re a man.

exactly, and something I don’t understand is this: even if you are totally misogynistic and don’t *really* emotionally care about the women you’re taking home to have sex with, if your masculinity depends on hunting success, and even if having sex is not about the shared experience but some kind of sport – even then, wouldn’t the only indicator of success, the sign of winning against team gatekeeper, of “having game” as a guy be her enthusiastic consent?

I actually enjoy flirting enough that I’m waiting for the day when it becomes an Olympic sport, but this is a very poor substitute for flirting, which is not a mass-produced, cookie-cutter product; it should be artful and relevant to the individuals involved. It’s also spoiled, as so many things are, by an obsession with the destination rather than an appreciation of the journey.

I couldn’t agree more. But not everyone is Picasso or Frida Kahlo, and even they needed time and practice to develop their talent.

I suspect that for a lot of people in this moment, the big question would be “How the fuck do I get out of this in the lowest-stress way?” So, here’s a tactic for you: “Okay, you go up and get the money. I’ll stay here in the cab.”

I think, it’s good to make the situation stressful. Stressful for yourself but also for the guy. These tactics heavily rely on the politeness of women. Many women don’t want to be rude, or make a scene, or appear hysteric. But their reluctance to show open aggression makes them vulnerable. Without really realizing it they end up alone in the apartment of one of these assholes. My advice would be to get loud and angry. Fuck calmness and politeness. Make a big scene!

I really don’t understand what’s wrong with someone who gives such pick-up advice (date rape advice, actually) or with the people who applaud him. The only reasonable explanation is that they see women as subhuman, not worthy of any empathy.

Before I read your book, Clarisse, I was much more sympathetic towards the PUA community. I’m more and more convinced that they are a bunch of fucking asshole, at least the leaders. Not only do they exploit women they also exploit lonely men. Manipulating people is easy, you just have to find suggestible targets. That can be the drunken, barley legal girl in a bar or the depressed, lonely guy seeking dating advice.

From my reading, that’s almost what the commentor he was responding to was arguing. Or as close to it as the thread (or his own views) would allow. And with that in mind, it’s telling that the response that the original author came up with was “that’s how I know you’re gay.”

It was the only way to avoid giving the only other answer for why he does what he does.

He wants to.

@Thomas:

My advice would be to get loud and angry. Fuck calmness and politeness. Make a big scene!

One thing that I’d point out in defense of Clarisse’s advice is that the tactic being countered — leaving the taxi to get money — doesn’t just rely on politeness, and that politeness isn’t the only thing being countered.

Leaving the cab doesn’t just get her to his residence; it also provides support for countering her testimony, if charges are filed, while eliminating a potential witness to conflict. Staying in the cab works against that, and it might also signal the driver to pay closer attention to what’s going on.

Asking the driver how much it would cost to wait while he goes up, and offering (to the driver, not to him) to cover it, might help to enhance that part.

And people, this is one reason that if a friend disappears at a nightclub, even for 15 minutes, we make sure we know where she is.

This kind of sums up why I almost never went to nightclubs when I was in my 20s and 30s. There’s no joy in it. It’s really a puzzle to me how people can have fun in an environment that is predatory (or at least perceived as predatory) such that women feel they can’t lose track of an inebriated friend for 15 minutes, lest she be taken somewhere and raped. That doesn’t sound like a fun environment, it sounds like prison.

I spend so much time around awesome people that I sometimes forget how fucked people can be. I mean I knew that from time to time some jackass will have this kind of opinion – but seeing it actively shared by that many cretins is just nauseating.

some study found that only 6% of women in clubs are there for the express purpose of getting laid.

I have a very hard time reconciling that figure with the behavior I’ve observed. I suspect that my friends are more probably promiscuous than most – but my observation of patrons/strangers in the vanilla bars I’ve worked at or frequented as a patron, is that substantially more than one in twenty women in those venues shows up at least hoping to get laid that night.

I clearly can’t prove that hypothethis, but I’ve worked in a few bars, done press work covering music events in a lot of clubs and bars, and spent my share of time drinking in licensed venues. The 6% figure just seems wildly incongruous to anything that I’ve observed. I suspect that figure like that probably say much more about western women’s internalized instinct to avoid appearing promiscuous, than about actual intent of night club patrons. I.E. Guys are conditioned to phrase it as ‘I’m going to the club to get laid tonight!’ and not mention the fact that they really like fruity cocktails and dancing, because that’s not a masculine reason to go to a club. I’d also suspect that girls are conditioned to phrase it as ‘Oh I’m just going dancing, maybe I’ll met a guy but that’s not why I’m here.’ while not mentioning that actually they really want to get laid because they don’t want to be labelled as sluts.

I don’t think the fakeness of PUA routines will ever develop into anything real

I disagree on the subject, but since I do agree with infra, that it would be inappropriate highlight positive aspects of the SC in a thread like this, I won’t get into it. Maybe there’ll be another opportunity to talk about routines ans creative flirting, training and talent.

@Scootah- I first experienced clubbing 3 years ago while a student and with female friends, and I don’t believe that any of us were going to the club with the express purpose of meeting someone to have sex with, or if that even occurred to us. I think you are right about Western women not wanting to expressly admit they are going to a club to meet someone to have casual sex with, except I think it sometimes goes even further than you say, to the point that the women don’t realise this is an option for them, because as you say, a woman saying to a friend ‘let’s go to the club and get laid’ is not normalised in our culture at all. That’s just my experience of it, though. Also, normal clubbing wear for women, in the UK where I am anyway, is revealing clothes, whether or not you are trying to meet a man.

I don’t know if it’s different in the US but here clubs are seen as a place to get wasted, probably before meeting sex partners or dancing. The drinks are deliberately made very cheap, and men go out in groups and get really wasted, and the next day have a laugh about all the stupid things everyone did, and the women go out in groups together and do the same. I’m sure predatory behaviour does sometimes happen but I’ve always felt safe in clubs here. I haven’t necessarily had fun, but that’s another thing about clubs here: among young people they are seen as something you have to do when you’re young to have a proper social life. That was why I went, because of that perception. The 6% figure could depend on the clubbing culture it was taken in, and therefore isn’t a reliable stat to be applied everywhere.

The Tel Aviv-based Center for the Art of Seduction posted something similar, and got a full-scale feminist demonstration in their gathering. I think if “sex as achievement” can be deconstructed, along the lines of Thomas Macaulay Millar’s “performance model of sex” and Yes Means Yes blog’s broader take on consent, PUAs can undermine the parts of rape culture that PUA has uncritically absorbed.
In reply to Miguel, that’s where the hookups are. I think sometimes that Esexus is a blog for those for whom things worked out in the end, and that those of us for whom that is not quite true or not yet true would benefit from staying closer to PUA. But I value his blog more than almost any other.

The 6% figure could depend on the clubbing culture it was taken in, and therefore isn’t a reliable stat to be applied everywhere.

That was my thought, too — especially considering the patterns that I’ve seen of choosing these bars or those clubs, depending on the intent. And there’s also the issue of whether or not someone’s pretty much staying at places where they’re a regular, or if they’re hopping to new places, or ones they don’t frequent often, and who they’re out with at the time (as well as who they think might be out, and who they might meet).

All of which is also influenced by population density. One of the most obvious ways in which those things tend to come together being whether or not the opportunities for sex are going to be in or outside of one’s normal social circle.

But on top of that, I think that there’s also a difference in separability. Kind of like the normalization point that you and Scootah mentioned, but a bit more subtle, and connected to different concerns, running as the difference between “I’m aiming to get laid, so I’m going out to the club” and “I’m going out to the club, and I’m aiming to get laid.” In that first one, it’s more along the lines of an “express purpose.” But in the second, it’s a reason for going that can be dropped if or when necessary, if circumstances warrant or demand it.

Which makes a great deal of sense. If sexual intent is going to be read into certain actions by default — as Sam mentioned, upthread, and as you noted in terms of the standards of dress — then the ability to be able to back that off is a necessity. One has to be able to “move other motivations to the front,” so to speak, and do so in a convincing way, in order to compensate for the effects imposed by the environment.

And that’s especially the case when, as you wrote, going to the bars and clubs is essentially an imposed requirement for socialization.

@Thomas — Not only do they exploit women they also exploit lonely men. Manipulating people is easy, you just have to find suggestible targets. That can be the drunken, barley legal girl in a bar or the depressed, lonely guy seeking dating advice.

Co-sign. While some guys get good out of it, there are so many who are getting hurt. And even the “success stories” often feel that their obsession with PUA was a weird/bad time in their lives.

@Lily — I don’t think the fakeness of PUA routines will ever develop into anything real.

It’s hard to say, right? Did Neil Strauss actually become a charismatic guy because of the routines that he claims taught him to be that way, or was he already basically there? I thought about this a lot while writing the section on social anxiety in my book, since PUA routines are so close to widely-accepted treatments for clinical social phobia.

As Infra notes, though, I guess it is kind of a bad call to have yet another thread about the merits of pickup artistry in this context :p

@Miguel — That doesn’t sound like a fun environment, it sounds like prison.

Huh. That’s … not how I think of it. I mean, keeping an eye on friends at a nightclub isn’t that hard, in my experience. You don’t have to be looking over their shoulder every minute, you just want to have a general sense of where they are and what’s up with them. Disrupting an approach like this guy’s doesn’t actually take that much attention. I’ve been to a lot of nightclubs with a lot of friends and I’ve never felt like it was a chore to keep track of people or keep people informed of where I was.

I’ll add that I go to clubs alone with some frequency, and when I do, bouncers can be very helpful. As can random passerby.

Even if we triple it, it’s still a minority of women in clubs. And yeah, what Infra said about multiple motives. The point is, this whole idea that “all women go to clubs to get laid” is a factor that can contribute to problematic tactics and weird PUA attitudes. I mean, I’ve gone to clubs with “getting laid” as one of my foremost goals for the evening, and it still makes me uncomfortable to see some of the PUA logic-trees that build from an assumption that I’m there to get laid.

Definitely agreed on the point about how it contributes to problematic tactics, assumptions, et al. Just as a closing note on that subject, on my part, I’ll note that there are some bars here where I’d place it at maybe 1-2%, even on weekends, with high double-digits in others. But it’s also notable that in one of those others, the dancing, pool and “general mixing” areas are kind of distinct, so there’s a way to almost physically move from motivation to motivation. And I’m pretty sure that that’s why the people I know tend to prefer it, if that’s what they’re going for that night.

@Eurosabra:

[…] PUAs can undermine the parts of rape culture that PUA has uncritically absorbed.

Threads like the one at RSD provide no reason to have faith in that, and every reason to lose faith in it.

This wasn’t an example of uncritically absorbing a part of rape culture. This was an example of someone advocating rape, others supporting it, and still others stating that they planned to go out and start practicing it. With some comments about waiting for “field reports from the police” mixed in.

The fact that this happened at a major forum, from a major company, and didn’t result in an immediate ban, closed thread, and clear policy stating a no-tolerance stand against such so-called advice: what are people supposed to think?

When things like this happen, stating that PUAs can challenge rape culture rings as a hollow promise. At best.

It seems like the PUA-influenced guys who are gonna come up with a better approach are most likely to be guys like Mark Manson and Hugh Ristik and Juggler, who have chosen to operate largely outside the PUA framework. But I do have some sympathy for guys like Eurosabra, who I think often mean well even though we disagree on so many things. I will be interested to see if something comes out of that. In the meantime, though, stuff like this RSD thread gets no mercy.

Well, it’s like watching that clip where the pastor was preaching about putting queers in camps, then hearing someone say that “people of faith can undermine the homophobia that Christianity has uncritically absorbed.”

@InfraComing back to this… there is an explanation for that first part, actually. For why they’d give that advice.
If other people follow it, it proves that there’s nothing wrong with them. That they’re just like anyone else.
Or, even worse: that, because people have chosen to follow them, it makes thembetter.

Completely agree with that. To me, the reaction from the commenters in that thread are even more disturbing than the advice itself. A decent human being would say something like: “Hey this fucked up. You might cause serious harm to a girl if you follow that advice.” But most critical comments are along the line of: “Be careful with that advice. The slut might cry rape the next day”. So basically, it’s ok to harm others, to rape as long as you get away with it. There’s just something profoundly wrong with a community which harbors this attitude.

As for the 6%, while I believe that most people do have some “sexual” motives (possibly among others like partying with friends) – flirting, meeting potential partner, checking and evaluating their own attractiveness on the market, getting ego-boosts, while being in a relatively protected (yet often dysfunctional) environment, usually out with friends, I don’t think that it’s that easy to assign single motives to people.

I’d say that about 80% of the available people including women in most of the clubs I go to *wouldn’t rule out* having one night stands or some sort of naked intimacy on an instant first date given the right circumstances. But that’s certainly not the only or most important reason why they go.

Interestingly, I’d say that 5% seems ball-park right for people who actually have one night stands (out of the 100% of people who wouldn’t rule it out) on any given weekend.

It seems like the PUA-influenced guys who are gonna come up with a better approach are most likely to be guys like Mark Manson and Hugh Ristik and Juggler, who have chosen to operate largely outside the PUA framework.

Thing is, though, I think that PUA has become pretty much synonymous with “dating advice for men”, very few people will be able to tell the differences.

Oh wow, just stumbled across an Israeli short film called SIGHT that gets into this subject (while being extraordinarily clever about the potential and dangers of “augmented” reality, well reality, really).

My last reply should have come with a pretty clear trigger warning, because of the included link. It’s also clear that firms have identifying information of their clients, and could report suspected crimes if they wished. Some of them have pretty ornate “information and entertainment only” disclaimers in states which criminalize coercive use of hypnosis (for example), which is pretty disconcerting, since it lets them disclaim responsibility. They don’t have product liability as such, the US case law on rape by deception doesn’t cover the issue, so being willing to report and cooperate with authorities would help fill in a legal gray area, at least in the US.

“all women go to clubs to get laid” is a factor that can contribute to problematic tactics and weird PUA attitudes.

I feel like that’s getting the cart before the horse. Or blaming the horse because the cart is a tree. I’m failing with analogies here – but I think that’s an off base thing.

I think the idea that “All women go to clubs to get laid” could just as easily be an argument for PUA’s all being ass backward jerks. If all women go to clubs to get laid, why would you go and lie and do all that stupid hypnotist/peacocking/negging asshole bullshit? Why not just go and talk to them like human beings and be open about your interest, and if you connect- that’s awesome. If you don’t? No need to play bullshit games, go talk to someone else until you do find someone to connect with. If you’re having trouble finding someone to connect after all of that, maybe you just need to work on being a slightly more interesting and fun person to hang out with, because there’s a hell of a lot of women here looking to get laid, and if you just act like a sensible person it’ll work out!”

I think the scarcity or lack thereof of sexually available women in a venue is independent of PUA insanity and bizarre tactics. For the most part, PUA’s are I think guys who have some kind of cognitive dissonance about why they aren’t having as much sex as they’d like too, and they’ve latched onto a crazy theory that lets them reconcile that fact with their egotism. I think if they believed that only one in 20 women in a nightclub was there looking for sex – they’d develop some kind of ludicrous system for identifying that one woman in 20 and then they’d obsessively fixate on the handful of women they believe are potentially interested in sex and harass them into nunneries.

Clarisse:“‘To get inside your house, tell her you need to get money before you guys go to the bar.’…I suspect that for a lot of people in this moment, the big question would be “How the fuck do I get out of this in the lowest-stress way?” So, here’s a tactic for you: “Okay, you go up and get the money. I’ll stay here in the cab.””
This advice seems strange to me. Why not say: “Good night, I am going home.” When you are afraid to go into some guys apartment, because he might rape you, why the heck would you go out with him. I simply can not see the fun (for either side) in a situation, in which a woman fears the man she is with might rape her. If I was the man in such a situation, I would try to end the encounter as fast as possible and end any intimacy this relationship might have had.Another reason I dislike this advice, is that it goes along with stereotypical female behaviour: women act non-confrontational and communicate their position indirectly and ambiguously.
For example here:“If she objects, say its too cold/hot to walk./ Its just 5 min/i just wanna kiss/ can we kiss?/ ignore what she says and physically force her.”
I would advice to slap him (not to injure him, but make an unmistakable point) and ask: “What’s wrong with you?”, especially in cases in which other people (like a cab driver) are present and so physical violence is less likely.

We’re talking about someone who’s targeted an intoxicated individual, in their late teens, has already isolated them from their friends, moved them blocks away from the bar before entering the cab, then taken them, in that cab, to their residence.

The most effective strategy, there, is to leverage what’s available in the environment, and use that to separate themselves from him, while retaining the driver as a witness and potential source of intervention, and the cab as a means of escaping. And that’s what Clarisse’s advice aims at.

Otherwise, you’re escalating to conflict from a severely disadvantaged position.

And since this has come up twice: the tendency to highlight “stereotypical female or feminine behavior” as the problem is, in itself, disconcerting. Yes, the forms of predatory behavior that we’re examining here rely on sexist stereotypes and behavioral expectations. But that does not mean that the only acceptable way to counter them is to reject behaviors that might resemble them, especially when doing so increases risk instead of lowering it. It isn’t victim-blaming as such, but it’s close enough to it to warrant some thought as to what’s actually being argued when those criticisms are raised.

And since this has come up twice: the tendency to highlight “stereotypical female or feminine behavior” as the problem is, in itself, disconcerting. Yes, the forms of predatory behavior that we’re examining here rely on sexist stereotypes and behavioral expectations. But that does not mean that the only acceptable way to counter them is to reject behaviors that might resemble them, especially when doing so increases risk instead of lowering it. It isn’t victim-blaming as such, but it’s close enough to it to warrant some thought as to what’s actually being argued when those criticisms are raised.

I guess, this is partly addressed at me. I’m torn if I should comment on the topic again because you’re right it comes close to victim blaming. Regardless, I would like to respectfully clarify my standpoint.

Let me put this upfront. If someone ends up in such a situation it’s not their fault. The kind of predators we are talking about are very skilled at pushing peoples boundaries and dispelling their concerns. And I don’t believe there’s a fail-safe way to protect yourself.

Being confrontational is not the only acceptable way, but it’s one way to counter predators. It has the advantage of alerting bystanders. The cap driver for example is more likely to intervene when the girl loudly states “I’m NOT coming with you!” than “Okay, you go up and get the money. I’ll stay here in the cab.” in a normal tone. Maybe I’m misreading Clarisse and I’m certainly nitpicking, but her line seemed too calm to me. The first line is also a more definitive statement, there’s less room for arguing. What I was trying to say is that women (or men for that matter) should not be afraid to appear rude in these situations. If it’s really all a big misunderstanding and the guy is not malicious, he will back off and apologize without holding a grudge.

“All women are in clubs to have sex” obviously doesn’t work without the hidden complement “even though they will usually *lie about it*” Without the latter aspect – disregarding for the moment where it comes from – your argument would be correct.

I can’t remember where he wrote about it, but Hugh Ristik once wrote a post or a comment about how “treating women as people” (*like *oneself/a guy* would like to be treated*) can easily yield some problematic unintended consequences when there are actually differences in preferences.

So, in a way, the assumption that “all women are in clubs to have sex” appears to be a baseline hypothesis about the relative similarity (and congruence) of heterosexual male and female sexual strategies. And as such it is, in a way, quite feminist. It is assuming women as humans who *want* sex, which wasn’t the cultural norm in the West for a while until recently.

But that assumptions can also be used to rationalize problamtic behaviour as “understanding the female predicament” of slut shaming, and helping her deal with that by allowing her to not have to be open about her desire and assuming the standard role of dominant male.

Thing is, helping women deal with those aspects of their cultural sexuality is probably a good idea in cases that involve flirting and not rape. Most people, including feminists, will agree that a) women are culturally trained to not be open about their sexuality (and, possibly also because of that aren’t always aware of it in the first place and lack strategies to actively pursue it in the current/standard dating paradigm) and b) even feminists often prefer male initiatiors.

So, again, “all women in clubs want sex” is, I believe, more usefully seen as a baseline hypothesis about the congruence of female and male sexual strategies in the current cultural setup and not as an actual assumption about all women in a given club. And I think, this is very much at the center of the perceived scarcity/sexual incongruence problem we’ve been talking about so much in the masculinity threads. As such, it can certainly influence behaviour, although, I’d maintain, not only in a bad way.

Being confrontational has the advantage of being unambiguous and alerting bystanders, but it has the disadvantage of tipping your hand.

Clarisse’s proposed statement. (“Ok, you go up and get the money and I’ll wait here”) seems calculated to make the asshole think you’re still going along with him. Whereas being confrontational lets him know he’s not in control of the situation.

What’s to stop the guy from telling the cab drive that he’s really sorry, she’s so drunk, you’re just trying to get her home, and can he please excuse you both? or something.

I’m a small woman. I know that if I was in a situation like that and I suddenly realized the situation had gone to scarily to shit, I’d be very, very cautious before I deliberately provoked anger in the guy, for fear of being physically overpowered or beaten.

@ Thomas–it’s probably important not to overvalue individual tactics; actual predators are likely to have put more thought into this than the ten seconds it takes to come up with a particular defensive tactic.

For example:

Being confrontational is not the only acceptable way, but it’s one way to counter predators. It has the advantage of alerting bystanders. The cap driver for example is more likely to intervene when the girl loudly states “I’m NOT coming with you!” than “Okay, you go up and get the money. I’ll stay here in the cab.” in a normal tone.

elle’s comment gets to the heart of one of the reasons why I have issues with the confrontation tactic. It wasn’t a situation where there was a risk of sexual assault involved — I won’t go into details, because I don’t want to risk identifying the woman involved* — but I have been in a situation somewhat similar to that of what the cab driver would be. And what was most disturbing about it was the responses of two of the other guys involved at the time. One who was there when it was initially developing, and another, who was a passenger in the car with me, while I was driving, and while she was coming toward us out of the house, yelling to us to wait.

Both took the position of “Man, you can see where this is headed. Don’t risk it. Hit the gas and get out.”

As elle wrote, confrontation tips the hand. And that means not just provoking a reaction from the predator, but also from bystanders, before they might have formulated a plan for intervening, or in a way that might strike them as being too dangerous for them to get themselves involved in it. They might act, or they just might decide that it’s “My cab, your problem,” because it’s the safest call.

And in those situations, the kind of thing that elle mentioned — responding that she’s drunk, he’s just trying to get her home, he’s sorry, can he excuse them both? — is just the kind of thing that someone who wants to “hit the gas and get out” needs to hear in order to do it.

The sad fact is that people who might want to help might not know how to — and that’s why they don’t. It’s why some people survive airplane crashes, and others, although they survived the initial crash, just stay in their seats while the flames approach them; it’s why people trained in CPR are always directed to make sure that someone calls 911, instead of assuming that someone will.

Sometimes people need to be helped in order to help. They need to be shown not just that they should intervene, but how.

—

* Though, by some chance, in case you are reading this: I never did forget you.

Huh, someone else just recommended that SIGHT film to me in a totally different context.

I think that on the topic of tactics, there’s also a question of what kind of tactics the individual using the tactic is more comfortable with. A lot of people (especially women) just can’t muster the emotional energy to be like “GET AWAY FROM ME RIGHT NOW.” It’s incredibly stressful to do that, and I think a lot of men underestimate how stressful it can be. And even if you can expend the emotional energy to do it, what happens if he just laughs at you, as Motley points out?

@Scootah — I think if they believed that only one in 20 women in a nightclub was there looking for sex – they’d develop some kind of ludicrous system for identifying that one woman in 20 and then they’d obsessively fixate on the handful of women they believe are potentially interested in sex and harass them into nunneries.

Heh …. But, in fairness, I heard a lot from advanced PUAs about how they learned to recognize women who were receptive very easily. I mentioned in Confessions, for example, that some PUAs talk about having “Terminator vision” for good targets.

And I will say — firstly, thanks to elle and Infra for sharing their experiences — and secondly, if you have no firsthand experience with (a) watching a situation like this go down or (b) being a small/weak woman like elle or myself, well … just keep in mind that you don’t have our degree of experience with handling these situations, and if you did then you might learn why small/weak women tend towards certain tactics.

Basically, I just think it’s worth asking “What in your experience leads you to think this danger-avoiding tactic is superior?” rather than saying “You shouldn’t use this tactic.”

Huh, someone else just recommended that SIGHT film to me in a totally different context.

Found it kind of interesting that they started it off with a version of this, myself.

If I’m right about the game that he’s playing at the start. Been a bit since I’ve played it, but I’m pretty sure that I remember that level. And the speech at 0:43+ in the video at that link (which is taken from the game’s title screen) is pretty relevant.

If I may throw my opinion I don’t really think PUA have so much to do with it at all and it’s actually and underlying problem that just get encouraged by the community or whatever.

If you look at the community you’ll see several kind of people having different kind of problems with women and one of those stereotype is that of the “nice guy”… and I can assure you a nice guy wouldn’t behave like that.

There’s a phase thought where there’s a transition from nice guy to overcompensating dick, where you transform all that frustration into a kind of disregard for women feelings (after all your experience is that they’ve done the same to you, even if it’s false). Mark Manson has an article on that.

In the end however I’m starting to think the fact that you revert to a more respectful and proper human being, finding the balance between the excessively nice guy and the jerk, is more in consonance to the previous values, education and morality of the person than any of the teachings of the PUA community itself.

Probably there’s an unfairness effect in the community as a whole, because the more “reasonable” people just hit, take some advice and leave, and won’t even stop to answer some shit like that mentioned in the forum topic, while, like someone pointed out, there’re some kind of “profiles” that are actively attracted to the community.

I would like to reiterate Clarisse’s point that plenty of PUAs do not support the sort of disgusting behavior described in that thread. In fact, within the thread, there are multiple expressions of dissent (even despite the RSD moderators supporting the OP).

I lol’d so hard reading the last few posts. Uh, this seems hard. Like, why the hell do you have to force her to do this shit?

He puts this in practical terms, and insists that he isn’t moralizing, but I’m not sure I believe him. He might simply be suppressing his moral views because he knows they would not be acceptable in such a toxic environment.

Later, there is this:

This is quite disturbing…especially how many times you wrote and emphasized “physically force her”. But hey….

And posting this for all the newbies and fanboys to miscalibrate sounds like a great idea, what could possibly go wrong? I can’t wait for all the police “field” reports lol.

Although he frames his criticism as protecting newbies, he very clearly calls the use of force “disturbing.”

And then there is this on the last page:

I seriously love what rsd teaches.. but when i ran across this…. how is this not considered drunken rape? Please explain..

Is it a calibration thing? I want to give [X] and [Y] endorseing it benefit of the doubt. Are you forcing (ensuring her/ fighting last minute resistance because you know shes really down for it? being congruent with what you want?)

or are you forcing a chick to go down on you who really doesnt want too.. cause that sounds like rape.. enlighten me

I’m sure other PUAs reading the forum were thinking similar things, but censoring themselves to avoid getting flamed.

This sort of thread is a depressing example of the corruption of particular pickup instructors and forums. I would advise caution before generalizing these tendencies towards the movement in general, which already seems to be happening in this thread. That post attracted criticism from PUAs on its own forum (despite social sanctions towards them), and TD has attracted ethical criticism from other PUAs before. He told people that he had reformed and grown past his former negative traits, but it seems that he hasn’t.

On a more personal note, I read posts by both those instructors years ago on social skills and positive attitude that were very helpful and influential for me. I feel very betrayed to see figures I looked up to when I was younger acting this way. Fuck them.

I don’t get why this is so shocking, or so different from what PUAs usually do. The vast majority of PUA material seems to be aimed at reducing the chance that the target will say no to sex (rather than making the target enthusiastic about sex), even when the target would really prefer to not have sex.

It’s about establishing social, and sometimes physical, dominance (thereby increasing the potential negative consequences of a no), actually inflicting, or increasing, the negative consequences of an initial no (to communicate that a second no will be costly) such as with a freeze-out, make it as unclear as possible what is going on (thus making it hard to decipher whether a no is needed), getting the target drunk (which decreases the capacity to say no), moving too fast for the target to think things through (reducing the time available to overcome the initial reluctance against saying no), and doing things as matter-of-factly as possible without asking (making it less obvious that a no would be socially acceptable).

Why is it so surprising that kidnapping and rape tactics find their way into that? Outright lying (to deprive the target of the knowledge necessary to say no) is just an extension of making it unclear what is going on, and physical force and verbal commands (indicating that a no is futile) are just extensions of establishing dominance. They’re very close to each other in that they all assume that the target must be made to obey the PUA, and that this is OK even when it’s against the targets’ will, or alternatively, that it can’t be against the target’s will because the targets are women and all women are biologically made to want men to dominate and force them.

The only difference is that the latter tactics are illegal. Or, from an ethical point of view, that the former tactics only significantly increase the chance that the target ends up having sex with the PUA against her will, whereas the latter almost guarantee it. I’ve had some of those tactics used against me, and while they immediately turned me completely off sex, I still went further along with some of these guys that I wanted, simply because I couldn’t find the opportunity to break it up. It made me feel like shit, because every time I went further than I really wanted, I felt like it was my fault for being weak, and most of the time when I didn’t go as far as the guy would have liked, he made me feel like it was my fault for not satisfying him/not upholding some social contract he’d established without my knowledge.

I have no doubt that if I hadn’t been quite as good at saying no (and believe it or not, compared to many other girls, I was quite good at resisting social pressure), if I hadn’t been quite as aware that penetration would have been unbearably painful, or if some kind of PTSD or other trauma had caused me to freeze or go into shock, I would have ended up having quite a lot of sex that I didn’t actually want, with little to no chance of getting any of the guys convicted (not even the guy who pulled his pants down, grabbed my hair, and forcefully pushed my face into his crotch without warning).

I don’t get why this is so shocking, or so different from what PUAs usually do.

Personally, it’s because I’ve been following this stuff long enough to know that there was a time when far less severe things were clearly called out. I can remember a guy being excoriated for his “nuke neg” on the mASF Usenet group; and I’ve seen guys flamed on forums that I used to visit for voicing pro-MRA views. Things didn’t have to approach nearly this level before being smacked down.

And now, light knocks have to be established through charitable interpretations?

Uninformed and blunt instrument as it was, the major, older material was about process. Not about replacing “shit” with “sex” and saying that it happens, then finding the most effective and efficient ways to make it happen more. And that’s what that instructor’s “fucking women” comment was about. Simply finding the ways to make it happen more.

And the closest thing that the community has to any kind of visible callout culture is… what? PUA Hate? Even if one could say that it does some good by warning people off, it still doesn’t focus on how abusive and predatory a number of the techniques — which are not peripheral, not fringe, and not staying on the sidelines anymore — have become.

Not when it comes to the people who are most at risk of being preyed upon.

You’re right: this isn’t shocking. Anyone who’s been paying attention to what’s been happening in the scene should have seen this coming, especially given the positive reception of 60’s work.

But the fact that it isn’t shocking is precisely why it needs to be called out, and called out strongly, in no uncertain terms, and with no self-protective hedging.

That, I believe, is what’s known as “owning your shit.” And it’s high time that the community started doing it.

What I find shocking about the quoted post is that force and the level of deceit are outside what I think is typical of PUAs. When PUAs generally employ dominance, plausible deniability, white lies, and a fast pace, it’s not particularly different from general heterosexual norms, and I think a case can be made that there is a female audience for that behavior. If so, those behaviors can be seen as furthering enthusiastic consent (albeit in a context of flawed dating scripts), rather than trying to get people to have sex they don’t want to.

To me, the emphasis on force in the criticized post is far outside typical pickup. Even though typical LMR advice like “persist through token objections while she is still responding sexually with her body” are grossly reckless, it’s in a different world from “Quickly take her to your room and if she says anything while you take off all your clothes, tell her to shut the fuck up, and make her go on her knees and suck your dick.” Some PUAs throw women over their shoulders or onto beds, but that seems vastly different from: “Dont be afraid to physically force her to do anything or to tell her no or shut up.” Am I the only one who sees a distinction here?

As for putting someone in a cab and lying about the destination, that tactic isn’t unique (as Clarisse notes), but I still think it’s pretty unusual in PUA advice.

Like you, I worry that (a small minority of) PUA tactics increase the chances of pushing someone into sex against their will, or (more likely) someone going along consensually with sex they do not want. Actually, this is a criticism I would apply to the culture in general, where the norms seem more optimized for excitement rather than safety, creating a “social contract” that not everyone might agree to. This culture is not only supported by PUAs or other men, but also by plenty of women.

I fully agree with you that general heterosexual norms are not ideal for initiating with people who have PTSD or who are trauma survivors in a safe way. (This includes non-PUAs, and women initiating with male survivors.)

Furthermore, since people are not monoliths, there may be cases where the behaviors found attractive by one group of women are found to be pushy or coercive by another group of women. What’s the solution here?

Personally, it’s because I’ve been following this stuff long enough to know that there was a time when far less severe things were clearly called out.

You may well be more up-to-date on trends in the community than me. However, this particular case was called out in the quotes I gave above. Yes, some of them hedged, but the one on the last page called it “drunken rape.” The RSD mods stifled dissent, but those guys have been around for a long time, and TD is not exactly known as a paragon of virtue.

Whether the seduction community is getting better or worse would probably depend on how you define it (e.g. just the guys who identify as PUAs, just the guys who hang out in lairs or post on forums, or the guys who have had any significant exposure to the material).

My intuition is that the community of men with PUA background is getting both worse and better, in that both the positive and negative messages are becoming popular in their own little niches and sub-communities.

no. I think the difference is pretty clear. I doubt that a situation like the one described in the OP could develop as an honest mistake by someone who was interested in her consent and merely assumed she was one of the 15% of women (according to Clarisse’s book’s source) who do put on token resistance.

My intuition is that the community of men with PUA background is getting both worse and better, in that both the positive and negative messages are becoming popular in their own little niches and sub-communities.

Maybe the label isn’t working anymore because the differences have become to big to be usefully denoted by the same term?

However, this particular case was called out in the quotes I gave above. Yes, some of them hedged, but the one on the last page called it “drunken rape.”

Which suggests that a small number of people might speak up… but out of how many? (Actually, there were a couple more that might qualify, such as the “why not just roofie them if you’re in such a hurry?” comment.) And with what effect? The questions are important, because they speak to issues outside of such forums. Including whether or not people who take PUA more positively will ever be able to make an impact on it as a whole.

And this is separate from the issue of how people react to threads like this one when they’re disclosed to those who didn’t previously know about them. Which is really the point that I was getting at.

As for dissent, the instructor in question was backing up the other members with most of his comments. For the most part, the members were policing themselves, with staff providing support. Characterizing that as “the RSD mods [stifling] dissent” is hardly accurate.

Whether the seduction community is getting better or worse would probably depend on how you define it (e.g. just the guys who identify as PUAs, just the guys who hang out in lairs or post on forums, or the guys who have had any significant exposure to the material).

Which speaks to Sam’s earlier point about “PUA” becoming synonymous with “dating advice for men.” What’s particularly troubling about this is that, because no real distinctions are drawn, the example of the genuinely shy guy, the genuinely socially awkward guy, the genuinely nice guy, the neurodivergent guy, et al. can be used as shields to hide and justify predatory and abusive behavior.

Or to disown it.

My intuition is that the community of men with PUA background is getting both worse and better, in that both the positive and negative messages are becoming popular in their own little niches and sub-communities.

And this would be where our primary difference lies.

Although I’d agree that some areas have gotten better, I think that the drive to establish distance from “those PUAs,” and to establish the validity and potential usefulness of some of the concepts, has resulted in a degree of insularity — and a lack of awareness of how bad things have gotten.

Which speaks to Sam’s earlier point about “PUA” becoming synonymous with “dating advice for men.” What’s particularly troubling about this is that, because no real distinctions are drawn, the example of the genuinely shy guy, the genuinely socially awkward guy, the genuinely nice guy, the neurodivergent guy, et al. can be used as shields to hide and justify predatory and abusive behavior. Or to disown it.

Right, but as things stand now I think in the general social narrative it’s at least equally likely that the genuinely shy guy, the genuinely socially awkward guy, etc, will be painted with the too broad brush of being interested in learning predatory behaviour if they’re looking for dating advice from the Seduction Community.

I’m not sure that a terminological distinction would matter, even if one were used. Similar to the situation in Sight, I think that the basics would be recognizable as “Game,” regardless of what they were called, or what one called oneself. And that’s really what’s at issue, anyway: not the group to which one belongs, but what one is learning, what it represents, and how it’s likely to shape one’s behaviors and attitudes.

As well as why that might be reason for worry, concern, or fear.

After spending some time thinking about this, I could only come to the same conclusion that I reached thinking over this question some time ago: ultimately, the notion that PUA is a form of self-help needs to be dropped. That certain techniques or approaches might have self-help effects might be true, but this doesn’t hold for the whole, and the idea that it does is the linchpin that holds that conflation together — as well as being one of the things that draws vulnerable people into it in the first place.

And if one effect of that is to ensure that genuinely socially awkward, shy, et al. guys who get into this do it as only one part of their self-improvement, that might help to balance that out, as well as help to counter some of the toxic parts of the community’s influence.

Slow change, perhaps. But it would help to loosen the grasp.

After that, change in names might be feasible, and it might serve a purpose. But I’m not sure that it would do much before.

Similar to the situation in Sight, I think that the basics would be recognizable as “Game,” regardless of what they were called, or what one called oneself. And that’s really what’s at issue, anyway: not the group to which one belongs, but what one is learning, what it represents, and how it’s likely to shape one’s behaviors and attitudes.

Yeah, I found Sight as interesting with respect to her reaction as with respect to his behaviour. She says “you really get me” and then she storms out calling him a creep and a “game junkie” when she realizes he had app-support on the date.

Which basically indicates to me that the great time she had suddenly wasn’t as good anymore because the guy had used some technology to give it to her (and to him). To rephrase that more abstractly: Her attraction was based upon certain premises about what constitues a *real* connection, and she felt his use of technology did not meet that standard – despite her *real* attraction to him.

But *was* it less real? In the film we learn that it was, because of what happens in the end, but what if he hadn’t abused his powers (which comes as no surprise, I know ;))? He’s be a guy who used a dating app to give her a great time and help her feel good about him. And she did.

I think the question really comes down to: why do we consider learned/aided behaviour as inherently problematic and manipulative? Why is it generally positive for a guy to “have game” but considered problematic to “learn game”? Is learning lying?

I wonder if Cyrano de Bergerac was ever discussed in this respect – it would be easy to call him the Sight-app and de Neuvilette a game junkie. Roxane eventually realizes she loves what is conveyed in his words, and not de Neuvilette’s appearance. But what about his words? Despite his talent for words he must have learned to use them well, to attract, to seduce, at some point.

Where do we draw the line? I’m not sure we can really draw one in the abstract. Intent is too important in this case. As in de Bergerac’s.

Yeah, I found Sight as interesting with respect to her reaction as with respect to his behaviour. She says “you really get me” and then she storms out calling him a creep and a “game junkie” when she realizes he had app-support on the date.

Which basically indicates to me that the great time she had suddenly wasn’t as good anymore because the guy had used some technology to give it to her (and to him). To rephrase that more abstractly: Her attraction was based upon certain premises about what constitues a *real* connection, and she felt his use of technology did not meet that standard – despite her *real* attraction to him.

Haven’t seen the video in question, but I still feel fairly safe in saying that it has nothing to do with that. It’s not about the dating experience, it’s about him. She’s evaluating him as a potential partner, and using the experience to judge, she’s not evaluating the experience and using him to judge.

If she’s evaluating whether she wants to spend more time on him, and potentially start dating him regularly, there’s a huge difference between someone with the empathy and social competence necessary to understand her, as well as the willingness to devote cognitive resources into doing so, and someone who’s just pretending. This will become a problem further along the relationship (unless he also has apps for dealing with things like her shitty day at work), and will most likely already start in the bedroom.

It’s also necessary to take into consideration that women’s evaluations are likely to contain a strong safety aspect. While it’s quite possible for rapists and abusers to be charming and manipulative, the chances of someone who “really gets” you turning against you are smaller, because “getting” someone often involves a certain degree of empathy. Once it’s clear that empathy was never a factor, the whole equation changes. That’s why it’s unsurprising that he ends up abusing it. It’s not just “People with great power will be prone to abuse it” it’s “People who fake empathy probably didn’t have a lot of it to begin with”.

And (based on my own experiences) there are also women who (apparently mistakenly) believe that dates can be, and frequently are, a way of having fun and finding out how compatible you are with another person. Someone who sees it in terms of accomplishment (e.g. calculating what to say solely based on whether it will lead to ‘success’/sex) is operating on a completely different basis, and that can be disappointing if you believed you were on the same page.

I think Cliff over at The Pervocracy had a good point when she responded to people saying that the (sex) games she played were way more forceful and extreme than anything PUAs did, by stating that the fundamental difference was that her kind of games were always consensual. PUA, at its core, is built upon dishonesty/lack of consent. The moment you tell someone “You are my target and all further interactions with you on my part will be a set of manoeuvres designed to give me access to your vagina” the mood is ruined, and as such, you can’t let the target know what your real angle to dating is.

I wonder if Cyrano de Bergerac was ever discussed in this respect – it would be easy to call him the Sight-app and de Neuvilette a game junkie. Roxane eventually realizes she loves what is conveyed in his words, and not de Neuvilette’s appearance. But what about his words? Despite his talent for words he must have learned to use them well, to attract, to seduce, at some point.

It’s funny, I was thinking of Cyrano less than halfway through your post :-) But the message I took from it was completely different. To me, the story is fundamentally about two men who decide that they know enough about what a woman wants to decide which of them she should be with, and ends up depriving her of the option to choose as a result. The point is that it leads to the tragedy of both Cyrano and Roxane spending 15 years apart while loving each other, which could have been avoided if Roxane had known the truth.

I’ll be offline for most of the day, so just a quick reply before I go…

As for Cyrano, well, I guess there are more than one morals in such a story. Yours is certainl also valid. The video in question is an 8 minute short film that I linked to above.

someone who’s just pretending.

See that’s exactly my point – what is “just pretending”? And what exactly is “being honest”? I have a female friend with an anxiety disorder, one that will likely have consequences on her relationships, but she won’t tell guys she meets in clubs about that, why should she? Is she pretending to be someone she’s not? Where’s the line between oversharing and “pretending”? Add to that that we’re *ALL* playing roles, that’s what gender is, particularly in a dating/mating context. Add to that cultural scripts that require acting in certain ways to conform to expectations we assume the other party to have without being aware of whether that actually is the case or not. Add to that that people aren’t necessarily interested in the same thing. Was she misleading the guy by going home with him? Was he thinking “she’s also up for just sex”? We’re really on the same page? In which case your argument about her evaluating his longterm partner potential would not really match? Was she pretending just as well? In the movie, she’s also using the SIGHT system, maybe she’s also using an app?

Dating *can* be really fun. Flirting is one of the most fun things on the planet. And it can be about validation and sex. Who’s saying those things cannot go together? They do, in my opinion, regularly, and as much for women as for men.

PUA, at its core, is built upon dishonesty/lack of consent. The moment you tell someone “You are my target and all further interactions with you on my part will be a set of manoeuvres designed to give me access to your vagina” the mood is ruined, and as such, you can’t let the target know what your real angle to dating is.

Well, I used a lot of resources to learn how to better relate to women, including feminist theory, but your characterization of the main idea of the SC is not what understood it to be. I understood it as being more along the lines of “I find you very attractive and I’ve learned certain social techniques which allow me to perform the social role of initatior in a dating/mating context, since this what you likely expect of me, as such they reduce complexity and allow me to express myself more like *my actual self* around you, get to know you better and potentially have sex along the way.”

Maybe my understanding is a consequence of a relative *lack* of exposure to SC material – I believe Hugh and infra are much better informed -, but I still believe that it played a certain role in my learning process and helped me be *more* emphatic in social situations, because it allowed me to no longer be completely absorbed in my own problems and mental hangups in the situation. To the extent that it helped increase my overall success with women, it also allowed me to gain a better understanding of the female perspective and their problems and challenges.

She says “you really get me” and then she storms out calling him a creep and a “game junkie” when she realizes he had app-support on the date.

It wasn’t just that. It was that she found the Wingman app in an achievement rack that was filled with “Perfect” achievements. (And if you look at the rack itself, it’s the only app that doesn’t have one yet.)

That’s the fundamental problem with “Game.” There’s no way to be sure, when someone practices it, if it’s actually about the person they’re doing it with, or if it’s just about the achievements. And that in itself is reason for suspicion.

When it comes to this, though:

Maybe my understanding is a consequence of a relative *lack* of exposure to SC material […]

I think that a substantial part of it is also likely to be this:

Well, I used a lot of resources to learn how to better relate to women, including feminist theory […]

The video in question is an 8 minute short film that I linked to above.

For some reason, it doesn’t show up for me (or I’ve just repeatedly overlooked it).

See that’s exactly my point – what is “just pretending”? And what exactly is “being honest”?

It’s not an either-or. Focussing on one’s existing positive qualities is different than making up non-existent positive qualities. Not mentioning something is different than outright denying it. Hiding something because there’s a potential social stigma attached to it, and you need to be sure you can trust the other party before revealing it, is different than hiding it just because it’ll reduce your chances with a target. Not mentioning something irrelevant is different than hiding something relevant.

In the case of a lot of PUA material, it’s not about not opening yourself completely, or even about not being too direct, it’s about misrepresenting intentions and motivations. Negging a beautiful woman, whom you picked as a target because of her beauty, in order to falsely communicate that you’re not affected by her appearance, or showing active disinterest in a woman you’re interested in to make her mistakenly believe that you’re not interested, is a different kind of deceit than not mentioning your interest in D&D when discussing your hobbies.

I don’t need to know if a guy used to pee his bed until he was 8, or if he’s a recovering drug addict, on the very first date. But I need to know whether he’s trying to get to know me better in order to figure out if we’re compatible, or whether he’s already decided that he wants me, and is working his way towards that goal. I need to know if we’re mutually engaged in flirting and communicating with each other, or whether he’s putting on a performance specifically to impress me.

In the latter case, I go from having around 50% responsibility to 100% responsibility, with no help coming from him. So I need to be the one to set all the boundaries, which in turn means I have to be hyper-aware of my boundaries (a lot harder than it sounds, and a turn-off). When a guy has standards, when he’s not 100% determined that it would be a good idea to go further with me, there’s a certain safety net, because he’ll usually slow down or back off when things get uncomfortable, because he feels it too.

It’s important to note here that I’m talking risk assessment, which has nothing to do with whether the situation is pleasant on the surface. It’s about feeling safe. Because when the very real risk that a seemingly pleasant situation can turn bad is looming over you, you tend to want your defences up.

And don’t give me that “But if she doesn’t know that the guy is around 30 times more likely to try to undermine her self-esteem, cross her personal boundaries when she least expects it, or get her to have sex against her will, and he hasn’t done so (yet), only her subjective experience should count”. You don’t tell people “But if they didn’t know the was a significant risk of encountering rattlesnakes when crossing this piece of land, and they didn’t encounter any snakes when they crossed it barefooted, only that subjective experience should count.”

You need to give people the option to choose. Women have those defences up for a reason, even if you don’t acknowledge or respect it, and when the common dating advice to men is not “Be the kind of guy women don’t need to have their defences up around, because they’re much more likely to be sexually responsive when they aren’t thinking about how to best ward off attacks” but rather “Pretend to be the kind of guy women don’t need to have their defences up around, because that way you can circumvent them instead of attacking them directly”, you’re setting up exactly the kind of situation you complain about, with women interpreting what you perceive as harmless dating support as a stealth attack. Because it is.

Add to that cultural scripts that require acting in certain ways to conform to expectations we assume the other party to have without being aware of whether that actually is the case or not. Add to that that people aren’t necessarily interested in the same thing. Was she misleading the guy by going home with him? Was he thinking “she’s also up for just sex”? We’re really on the same page? In which case your argument about her evaluating his longterm partner potential would not really match?

Let me put it this way: I’ve seen plenty of dating advice for men directly proposing that the guy should make the woman believe that his intentions are different than they really are, including the PUA advice about active disinterest. I have yet to see a single dating advice for women about how to best make him believe your goal is to just have sex, even though it isn’t. And if such advice exist, I fully expect that the PUAs who’re aware of it will use it to further try to justify their view that women are opponents rather than partners in the dating game.

Dating *can* be really fun. Flirting is one of the most fun things on the planet. And it can be about validation and sex. Who’s saying those things cannot go together? They do, in my opinion, regularly, and as much for women as for men.

Sure it can be fun, but it’s a lot more likely to be so when you’re all on the same page. For instance, some people are so used to seeing everything as a compliment, or have such a strong belief in their own awesomeness, that things like negs will not affect them a whole lot. But some people are socially awkward (though that’s almost never acknowledged in women the way it is with men) or very literal, and will see it as a legitimate insult.

Some people don’t have very high thoughts about themselves, and will see negs as a real (legitimate) criticism. Some people are used to being around passive-aggressive people, so the passive-aggressive nature of most negs will give them bad associations. Some people are used to receiving legitimate (or at least honestly intended) criticism through irony or teasing from their surroundings, and will see the neg as cause for adjustment on their part. And so on, and so on.

And these people (in this case women) are not necessarily less right or reasonable in their assessments of negs than the women who find them amusing and/or just brush them off. In fact, very often, they’re more correct in their assessment of the motivations of the guy doing the negging, since negs are usually used specifically to lower women’s confidence and belief in their own worth (e.g. “bringing her down a notch”).

It’s perfectly possible to engage in gentle teasing without negging of course. If a guy starts up slowly, makes it clear when he’s being ironic for the first time, makes jokes at his own expense too, shows that he knows he’s not being completely fair (e.g. holds up his hands, smiles, and says “OK, you can slap me now”) etc., the mood usually becomes a lot more light-hearted and friendly than with the usual passive-aggressive sexist “it’s just a joke”.

And most of it is about the right mood. When you’re thinking about appearing sweet and friendly to a guy, it’s a lot harder to process when he suddenly insults you. If you’re prepared for some witty banter, your mind is a lot more likely to go straight to thinking up snappy retorts than to wonder whether he really means it. This goes for guys too. I once ‘rescued’ a guy from a girl who’d gotten him to dance with her and was getting increasingly grabby and kissy. He was literally stunned, and didn’t do anything to stop it, and yet he showed obvious relief when I started talking to him and thanked me afterwards for giving him a way out. Part of it was that had no idea how to get her to back off in a socially acceptable way (women face the same issue), but part of it was the sheer surprise of it, and the lack of time to adjust.

When you suspect that the guy you’re flirting with will suddenly launch some kind of assault on your confidence, your personal boundaries, etc., flirting becomes a lot less fun. But if you allow yourself to relax in the belief that he’ll give you a heads-up and an easy way out if he wants to escalate, and it turns out he didn’t, it’s not fun at all. So the choice is reducing your fun right now, or running the risk of fun turning bad.

Of course you learn to adjust after a while, learn to be permanently on blue alert (e.g., to use Clarisse’s example, to always keep track of your friends) and swiftly and routinely go to yellow alert, without worrying too much about needing to go into orange or red alert. But not all people master the perfect state of alarm yet (high enough to ward off most potential dangers and/or easily deal with most minor unpleasantries, but low enough to still have fun and relax) and some never will.

That’s (yet another reason) why it’s usually a good idea to communicate to where you’re at and what you’re trying to accomplish, at least indirectly. Unfortunately, people who haven’t experienced the need to go into any kind of alert usually have little to no empathy, understanding, or respect for why this kind of communication is good idea, and they’re usually the exact same people who cause most harm by not doing it.

Dating *can* be really fun. Flirting is one of the most fun things on the planet. And it can be about validation and sex. Who’s saying those things cannot go together? They do, in my opinion, regularly, and as much for women as for men.

To supplement what AB wrote above, it’s worth pointing out that there’s a narrative even in the more positive PUA/SC approaches that works against this: the idea of “getting that part of my life handled,” which is one of the more subtle ways in which validation and the more natural “fun” that’s involved can conflict.

In some ways, that’s more what’s represented in Sight than the overtly predatory forms of PUA are. Most of the more positive approaches that have emerged over the years have tended toward an overall “lifestyle improvement” view, where finances are handled, health and physique are handled, style is handled, self-esteem is handled, social competence is handled, and so on — and so are romantic and sexual interactions.

It isn’t a “vagina as target, target as vagina” view, true. And it isn’t validation in the kind of sense that’s usually highlighted. But there’s a difference between understanding something well enough that you’re no longer lost in it, no longer hurting people with it, and no longer being hurt by it, and feeling that you’ve become capable enough in something that it’s “handled” and you no longer need to worry about it.

And that difference, I think, is reflected both in what AB wrote about how people who have had to go into alert experience the world differently than those who haven’t had the need to, as well as in Sight, when Daphne mentions the fact that it crashed while she was out jogging, and Patrick simply responds, initially, with a denial, and then after, with “that doesn’t happen since our last patch.”

Both of these things, I’d say, highlight that the difference is between competence with, and competence without, comprehension.

And that’s the danger in some of the more positive approaches, distinct from those of the more predatory ones. In the usual course of going about building these skills, and of acquiring these experiences, we gain context; the knowledge comes along with learning why it’s necessary to know it. When that process is short-circuited, the knowledge can still be gained, but the context can be lost — which leads to otherwise healthy patterns being applied in inappropriate and even bizarre ways, and to confusion, and to people not knowing whether they should be on alert or not, because what would normally be right is being applied in ways that aren’t.

And when that happens, it’s far more difficult for things to be “fun” for anyone.

I’d like to say that the same is at least as true for feminist theory, in my experiece.

It can be similarly true.

But when taking into account the fact that this still occurs even given the influence of the likes of Audre Lorde and bell hooks, as well as influence from disability theory, postcolonial theory, trans* theory, et al., and given the massive amount of academic work available — even if it doesn’t necessarily reach the community as a whole — and produced over the course of several decades, disparate cultures, and several continents, covering a wide range of subjects and fields, from psychoanalysis to media criticism to neuroscience…

This only goes to show how far PUA has yet to go, and how limited its scope currently is.

Which suggests that a small number of people might speak up… but out of how many? (Actually, there were a couple more that might qualify, such as the “why not just roofie them if you’re in such a hurry?” comment.)

I’m not sure out of how many, but I just want to make sure we recognize the presence of the dissenters to evaluate the thread fairly.

As for dissent, the instructor in question was backing up the other members with most of his comments. For the most part, the members were policing themselves, with staff providing support. Characterizing that as “the RSD mods [stifling] dissent” is hardly accurate.

Ok, there was both self-policing and then RSD further stifling dissent.

What’s particularly troubling about this is that, because no real distinctions are drawn, the example of the genuinely shy guy, the genuinely socially awkward guy, the genuinely nice guy, the neurodivergent guy, et al. can be used as shields to hide and justify predatory and abusive behavior.

Or to disown it.

No disagreement here.

Although I’d agree that some areas have gotten better, I think that the drive to establish distance from “those PUAs,” and to establish the validity and potential usefulness of some of the concepts, has resulted in a degree of insularity — and a lack of awareness of how bad things have gotten.

Perhaps. Though a lot of the stuff I read in the past was also pretty bad, and I was just filtering it out at the time.

ultimately, the notion that PUA is a form of self-help needs to be dropped. That certain techniques or approaches might have self-help effects might be true, but this doesn’t hold for the whole, and the idea that it does is the linchpin that holds that conflation together — as well as being one of the things that draws vulnerable people into it in the first place.

Pickup contains a lot of things. Self-help is a strong theme, and it’s not merely the incidental effect of other themes. Pickup is a movement with strong self-help themes and strong toxic themes. There is no contradiction between those things.

And if one effect of that is to ensure that genuinely socially awkward, shy, et al. guys who get into this do it as only one part of their self-improvement, that might help to balance that out, as well as help to counter some of the toxic parts of the community’s influence.

Pickup contains a lot of things. Self-help is a strong theme, and it’s not merely the incidental effect of other themes. Pickup is a movement with strong self-help themes and strong toxic themes. There is no contradiction between those things.

No contradiction, but an important choice when it comes to approach: inclusion or alliance.

Probably the best way to illustrate this is to bring up “LGBTQ.” On the surface, it doesn’t seem problematic; but that’s only until one recognizes that “queer,” as an identifier, is sometimes used to distinguish oneself from what one perceives as assimilationist approaches in mainstream LGB movements, meaning that adding the “Q” erases its meaning. Similarly, critiques are often raised regarding the “T” ending up standing more for “tokenization” than “trans*” — and this isn’t even to touch on the contentious issues involved with the “trans* umbrella” itself.

Point being, the inclusiveness comes with a price, and it’s a substantial one; and the fact that similar themes exist doesn’t necessarily justify it, especially when goals might be better served by an alliance perspective than an inclusionary one.

So, yes, pickup contains a lot of things, and the self-help theme isn’t just incidental to the other themes. But what I’m saying is that that’s a problem to be addressed by rethinking inclusion, not something to be accepted as is by running with it.

It’s not about the dating experience, it’s about him. She’s evaluating him as a potential partner, and using the experience to judge, she’s not evaluating the experience and using him to judge.

But are those things so separable? If you want to give a someone a positive experience, shouldn’t that be points in favor of your character?

If she’s evaluating whether she wants to spend more time on him, and potentially start dating him regularly, there’s a huge difference between someone with the empathy and social competence necessary to understand her, as well as the willingness to devote cognitive resources into doing so, and someone who’s just pretending

In the video, it is pretty transparent that he is just pretending. In fact, it’s so transparent that I don’t find her eventual interest in him believable. Despite the directions of the app, his insincerity and incongruity would have been leaking through, easily detectable by her even if she wasn’t using a social skills app. She would not have actually wanted to go home with him, and she would have been weirded out.

In contrast, PUAs are encouraged to internalize the material and be congruent with it. Although it might take time to do so, it does involve developing social competence and empathy, and it’s not merely pretending.

PUA, at its core, is built upon dishonesty/lack of consent.

My understanding of what pickup is built on is more similar to Sam’s:

“I find you very attractive and I’ve learned certain social techniques which allow me to perform the social role of initatior in a dating/mating context, since this what you likely expect of me, as such they reduce complexity and allow me to express myself more like *my actual self* around you, get to know you better and potentially have sex along the way.”

It’s scrolls by quickly, but it’s before (IIRC) he asks if there’s anything else she didn’t write that he should know about. And it’s notable that her status says that she’s out on a “blind date… again.” So, at least as far as the film goes, the incongruity between the faking on his part and the fact that she shows interest in him toward the end of the date isn’t unexpected; they’re both playing roles.

That’s (yet another reason) why it’s usually a good idea to communicate to where you’re at and what you’re trying to accomplish, at least indirectly.

Explicitly communicating where you are at can be great in certain contexts, and perhaps it can help other people make better predictions about your behavior. Maybe it could help with safety. But it has several limitations:

1. People aren’t always sure what they are trying to accomplish, and can feel conflicts, or engage in self-deception about what they are trying to accomplish.

2. What people are trying to accomplish can change pretty fast. For instance, if people start making out, then some previous uncertainties about having sex might evaporate. This is widely known. For instance, if I say “I’ll come in for a while but I can’t stay long because I want to get to bed,” I assume she knows that there is a chance of me changing my mind and wanting to have sex if she appears interested and we both get turned on before I run out of energy.

3. Some receptive partners will make negative judgments of initiators who communicate their interest explicitly, particularly heterosexual women with men. Furthermore, accurate and comprehensive descriptions of what people are trying to accomplish may often violate norms. I would be perfectly happy to tell people “I’m screening for relationship compatibility, but in the meantime I’d be perfectly happy to sleep with you if you’re up for it, and I’ll continue making advances while you seem responsive”… except making such a statement would violate a norm, even though I think many women would be fine with the actual approach I describe.

4. “Communication” of your intent depends on the background knowledge of the audience. If a woman is aware of the script by which men are expected to initiate in response to indications of cooperation by her, and she understands that men are likely to know whether they want to have sex together sooner than she does, then she will be able to make better predictions and avoid unsafe or uncomfortable situations. Part of the reason I’ve been so interested in discussing pickup is because I want more women to know about it, and to be able to understand what mental processes men might be going through when initiating with them.

There are plenty of tactics in pickup for explicitly showing interest, such as the SOI. There is also a whole style based on being direct, called “direct.”

As for indirectly signaling where you are at, PUAs have many tools for doing so, including the exact ones that you complain about in this thread. Both negs and active disinterest can signal what you’re trying to accomplish. They might signal “I’m interested, but I know better than to dump my interest on you and force you to immediately make a decision before you’ve had a chance to evaluate your interest in me.” That sort of behavior can be an indicator of empathy (and yes, it could also be a false expression of it.

Even if the active disinterest does make her confused about his level of interest, I don’t think that’s actually a problem as long as looks for consent when initiating later.

Same thing with other types of white lies or isolation tactics that PUAs may use. To a knowledgeable woman, these tactics are a subtle form of communication: “do you consent to us going into a venue where it would be easier for me to escalate towards sex?” Even if she doesn’t read that signal, those behaviors are not problematic as long as he looks for consent and “calibrates” to her responses when isolation occurs.

The problem with the tactic of a PUA putting a woman in a car without revealing its true destination is that consent for the particular type of isolation is not requested. Luckily, this tactic is highly unusual.

PUAs do engage in ambiguity, yet I suspect that they aren’t trying to isolate someone and then blindside her with escalation that she isn’t prepared for. Such a practice isn’t just gross, it would probably be ineffective, too. If some women are unfamiliar with the traditional dating scripts and unaware of implicit communication through ambiguity, then perhaps they might end up needing to uncomfortably rebuff unexpected advances. That’s an annoying situation, but perhaps the problem is their lack of education about widely-held gender norms, and that men often calibrate their behavior to the expectations of other women who might look down on them if they don’t initiate.

I’m not sure it’s either practical, or widely desired by women for male initiators to be upfront and explicit about their motivations and level of interest. Such communication is probably more useful for creating awkwardness than for keeping women safe.

The ability of male initiators to read female responses, understand what her sexual psychology might be, and to back up when resistance or discomfort are encountered, are probably far more useful for female safety. It would also be useful for initiators of both genders to be educated about situations in which receptive partners might feel pressured, or have trouble saying “no” even when no pressure is present.

A more radical solution would be to break down the traditional gender roles and not place men in the role of unilateral initiator more often, or to at least create a standardization of signals of interest or resistance.

To a knowledgeable woman, these tactics are a subtle form of communication […]

That’s really the problem, though, isn’t it?

“To a knowledgeable woman.”

This is especially the case with the neg and active disinterest situations, which are, at the least, tactics that involve dissembling. But in general, there are several assumptions involved in the kind of implicit communication frame that you’re presenting:

1. The “dominant script” has been correctly identified and delineated;
2. That “dominant script” is, in fact, dominant and active in that situation, and in the individual’s context;
3. The individual is conversant with it, and ideally skilled in it;
4. The individual can recognize the technique or tactic being used;
5. The individual can recognize how that technique or tactic relates to the “dominant script;” and
6. From this, the individual can discern the intended communication.

Granted, you did recognize that there are situations in which this can fall through, but you also framed this as a lack of education, which comes dangerously close to “if this is problematic, it might be because the women in question are non-normative” — if not being equivalent to it.

And that’s one of the major criticisms leveled against PUA in the first place, right? That it doesn’t take non-normative women into account, address their concerns, account for their safety, or consider their needs.

Sorry for quick responses, a lot of comments were posted while I wasn’t paying attention ….

@AB — I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but this:

I think Cliff over at The Pervocracy had a good point when she responded to people saying that the (sex) games she played were way more forceful and extreme than anything PUAs did, by stating that the fundamental difference was that her kind of games were always consensual. PUA, at its core, is built upon dishonesty/lack of consent. The moment you tell someone “You are my target and all further interactions with you on my part will be a set of manoeuvres designed to give me access to your vagina” the mood is ruined, and as such, you can’t let the target know what your real angle to dating is.

Cliff over at the Pervocracy is into BDSM and a feminist, and I am also into BDSM and a feminist, and I disagree with her. Also, between the two of us, I’m the one who’s actually spent significant time researching the PUA community :p

Cliff’s BDSM may always be consensual (I haven’t observed it personally), although I’d be surprised if she never had a situation in which a BDSM mistake or overreach was made. She doesn’t speak for all BDSMers, though, and there are definitely BDSMers out there who have done non-consensual things. Claiming that all PUAs are acting non-consensually is like saying all BDSM is assault, or all sex is rape.

@Hugh — You wrote,

The problem with the tactic of a PUA putting a woman in a car without revealing its true destination is that consent for the particular type of isolation is not requested. Luckily, this tactic is highly unusual.

Emphasis mine. I would love to have some proof for the assertion that the tactic is “unusual.” I’m pretty sure you can’t prove it. I mean, it happened to me within hours of my first exposure to PUAs.

I agree with you frequently, obviously, but I think it would be extremely hard to prove that any given PUA tactics are common/rare. They may be rare in your experience, but you’ve stated before that you try to hang out with more ethical guys, so your sample is limited.

@Infra — And that’s one of the major criticisms leveled against PUA in the first place, right? That it doesn’t take non-normative women into account, address their concerns, account for their safety, or consider their needs.

Right! Also, I question just how non-normative a woman has to be for her to “give the wrong signals” or miss signals, even from a “skilled” PUA. What if she’s a normative woman who happens to be drunk or intoxicated on a new drug? Or just really tired? Or young? One of the grossest things about a lot of PUA material (and culture in general, honestly) is that very young girls are so often claimed to have knowledge that would make it okay to treat them a certain way, which they actually do not have.

While reading the comments, and taking into account I identify myself to a certain extent with the PUA community it bothers me how often that flirting and sexual intent is identified with an “attack” to the girl in question. I don’t like the concept of the one approaching and flirting as the one “attacking” and the other person having to decide if he/she has to “defend” against it.

Any kind of interest in a girl, openly or covertly expressed is, first and foremost, a compliment to her, disregarding whether she’s actually interested on the guy or not. Truth is in the dating game there’s always some level of uncertainty and acting for everyone involved, not just for the PUA in question.

There’re a hundred things I don’t approve inside the PUA community. Some which are plainly offensive, some which are plainly scam, and some which work on the short term but don’t in the long term. The problem is PUA has become a concept that tends to cover a lot of ground so almost ANYTHING fits inside the category.

So if a guy is very pushy, quickly escalates sexually, takes every doubt the girl may have as consent and has read “The game”, then he’s a jerk that is following PUA tactics, doesn’t care too much about consent and is manipulating the girl. Therefore the PUA community promotes manipulative tactics.

But if a guy is very pushy, quickly escalates sexually, takes every doubt the girl may have as consent and HAS NOT read “The game” or any other PUA material he’s simply a really sexually aggressive and forward guy. Some girls actually find that really attractive.

The point is, generalizations are really dangerous and while I’m aware of some of the (rightful) critiques to some specific PUA tactics and companies, morally judging one specific situation (or a hundred for that matter) and then generalizing to all the people is dangerous.

In the end, the most one can aspire to is to individually judge each teaching, each piece of advice given and then morally judge THAT, instead of just judging the whole community. For example here’s a couple of things I posted somewhere else that I’ve found really useful, this are all things that I learnt in the context of the PUA community:

– Self-amusement: Whenever you’re making humor or teasing your main goal should be self-amusement.
– Difference between being a good guy and a being a nice guy.
– Expressiveness: Specially letting your emotions reach your face.
– The 3 second rule.

These are all simple harmless concepts that I was completely unaware of and that definitively improved my dating life and my social skills in general.

Emphasis mine. I would love to have some proof for the assertion that the tactic is “unusual.” I’m pretty sure you can’t prove it. I mean, it happened to me within hours of my first exposure to PUAs.

I can’t prove that it’s unusual. The reason that I suspect that it’s unusual is because I’ve only seen that tactic twice: once from the post under discussion, and once from your experience (which I am sorry to hear about).

In contrast, I’ve seen other distasteful tactics like “continue through token resistance” mentioned multiple times.

If this behavior was more common, I would expect to have seen PUAs talking about it more often. Of course, I can’t rule out the possibility that PUAs are doing stuff like this without mentioning it on forums. In that case, I would wonder if they are doing because pickup led them to the idea, or helps them justify it, or because they were assholes in the first place who were drawn to pickup.

Granted, you did recognize that there are situations in which this can fall through, but you also framed this as a lack of education, which comes dangerously close to “if this is problematic, it might be because the women in question are non-normative” — if not being equivalent to it.

I’m saying that if certain PUA behaviors have problematic consequences based on women misreading PUA intentions, that may be partly due to lack of female knowledge about the sort of cultural dating norms that pickup is based on.

Pickup (as an extension of the general culture) does indeed marginalize non-normative women, but that’s not what I’m focused on here. It’s possible to be non-normative, and still be aware of what the norms are even if you don’t particularly like them. For instance, a woman can be aware of the norm that men may be expected to initiate until a rejection is encountered, even if that practice isn’t consistent with her preference, and she can use that knowledge to help avoid situations where men might continue to initiate and put her in the uncomfortable position of playing gatekeeper.

Communication is a two-way street. When sexual communication inevitably goes wrong (e.g. a man misreads a female behavior as an invitation to make a certain advance, or a woman doesn’t recognize that a man is trying to set up an escalation situation), then maybe that shouldn’t be automatically seen as an error the guy made, or a lack of knowledge on his part. If a woman gets the wrong idea about a PUA’s intentions from something he says or does, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he is “dishonest” (assuming he didn’t know that she would get the wrong idea), and it could also be viewed as her missing some sex education.

When either men or women aren’t made aware of the common mating scripts in their culture, that’s a failure of sex-ed.

The point of norms and scripts is so that people can have some shared assumptions about how social interaction will proceed even with imperfect knowledge of the other person. And if the default scripts don’t apply to your preferences, then perhaps you can find ways to signal to others that they don’t apply.

Without some sort of script, we must stake women’s sexual comfort and safety on men’s ability to mentally simulate a large database of female preferences and responses, including how different types of women act when they are inexperienced, drunk or tired. That seems… inefficient.

Empathy alone won’t give you this knowledge; it’s probably at least a bachelor’s degree worth of information, and there is no textbook for it. Expecting men to know all that information without being taught is not only potentially dangerous for women, but it’s grossly unfair to men to shift 100% of the communication and prediction responsibility to them.

What I like about pickup is that it exposes some of the common scripts, and uses them as a basis for a potentially shared set of assumptions about how sexuality will proceed (even though it’s assumptions aren’t always accurate). BDSM is a different sort of shared assumptions and common scripts. I care less about where we are getting shared assumptions, as long as we have some. There need to be more shared assumptions about which behaviors indicate interest and disinterest, or consent and non-consent.

I don’t need to know if a guy used to pee his bed until he was 8, or if he’s a recovering drug addict, on the very first date. … I need to know if we’re mutually engaged in flirting and communicating with each other, or whether he’s putting on a performance specifically to impress me.

I don’t really understand why you can’t see the latter *as part* of the former. Performing *to impress* is often a necessary condition for flirting and communicating with each other – although it’s in my experience a little more intertwined: the former is usually also a necessary condition of the ability to perform *and* impress. Again, I can’t really see the strong contradictions you seem to see.

Women have those defences up for a reason, even if you don’t acknowledge or respect it, and when the common dating advice to men is not “Be the kind of guy women don’t need to have their defences up around, because they’re much more likely to be sexually responsive when they aren’t thinking about how to best ward off attacks” but rather “Pretend to be the kind of guy women don’t need to have their defences up around, because that way you can circumvent them instead of attacking them directly”, you’re setting up exactly the kind of situation you complain about, with women interpreting what you perceive as harmless dating support as a stealth attack.

Again, as I believe I already expressed with my understanding of the community above, I think the basic advice *is* the former – I understand that it can easily look like the latter if done with bad intent, but I don’t think that’s the idea most men looking for advice have: they’re looking for ways to become *truly* more attractive and *truly* attract women, not merely how to *pretend*.

I have yet to see a single dating advice for women about how to best make him believe your goal is to just have sex, even though it isn’t. And if such advice exist, I fully expect that the PUAs who’re aware of it will use it to further try to justify their view that women are opponents rather than partners in the dating game.

I suppose you don’t think of push up bras ;) Seriously, that would certainly be interesting advice… apar from that, honestly, sure, there are frustrated guys out there, a lot actually, but in my opinion, the antagonist view of dating is *much* more common among feminists.

It’s perfectly possible to engage in gentle teasing without negging of course.

Yeah, but tastes do differ with respect to gentle as well.

When you suspect that the guy you’re flirting with will suddenly launch some kind of assault on your confidence, your personal boundaries, etc., flirting becomes a lot less fun. But if you allow yourself to relax in the belief that he’ll give you a heads-up and an easy way out if he wants to escalate, and it turns out he didn’t, it’s not fun at all. So the choice is reducing your fun right now, or running the risk of fun turning bad.

Yeah. Sure, but I’m not so sure that’s as common as you make it appear – Hugh Ristik once did some sort of statistical research in a dating forum about female preferences with respect to being kissed. He posted it in one of the earlier manliness threads: BY FAR most women were most interested in the excitement of being kissed without being asked first, and safety concerns didn’t feature particularly highly on their list of things to consider in the situation.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I agree that being safe (and not pretending, while playfully dominant/escalating) is the key to making any woman open up at all, but the “safety first” seems to be something that features much more prominently in feminist discussions than in dating/mating discussions with even self identified female feminist friends in real life.

In the usual course of going about building these skills, and of acquiring these experiences, we gain context; the knowledge comes along with learning why it’s necessary to know it.

Yeah, sure, it *can*. But what kind of argument is that? That it’s impossible to understand that hot plates are hot and you can burn your fingers if you don’t pay attention if you haven’t actually burnt your fingers?

Clarisse,

One of the grossest things about a lot of PUA material (and culture in general, honestly) is that very young girls are so often claimed to have knowledge that would make it okay to treat them a certain way, which they actually do not have.

I think this is mostly extrapolating from male thought structure – “I’m aroused by her and she must have looked into a mirror before, therefore she must know the effect she’s having.” While you’re right that this knowledge cannot be assuemd, it’s also expected by women that guys have all this knowledge about women, and it’s (procedurally) even more important that they have it as long as it’s usually required of them to initiate and escalate. Basically, there’s a very small window in which they can learn this “naturally”, as per infra’s suggestion above. And who’s going to teach them naturally, anyway?

Hugh,

I really like comment #80.

And, of course, this –

Empathy alone won’t give you this knowledge; it’s probably at least a bachelor’s degree worth of information, and there is no textbook for it. Expecting men to know all that information without being taught is not only potentially dangerous for women, but it’s grossly unfair to men to shift 100% of the communication and prediction responsibility to them.

Yeah, sure, it *can*. But what kind of argument is that? That it’s impossible to understand that hot plates are hot and you can burn your fingers if you don’t pay attention if you haven’t actually burnt your fingers?

More like “If they’re replacing taps pretty often, and they rarely give you any tolerances at all, it’s probably a sign that they didn’t train the way that they should have, and don’t understand this the way they need to — and that it’s time to start looking for somewhere else to work.” To go from a friend’s recent job story.

In machining, that kind of thing results in disrupted supply chains, injuries, wasted stock, downed equipment… not some abstract “hot plates” metaphor. So with that modification, apply it to PUA.

Also, from your response to Clarisse:

I think this is mostly extrapolating from male thought structure – “I’m aroused by her and she must have looked into a mirror before, therefore she must know the effect she’s having.”

I’d disagree. I think that there are some complicated arguments to be advanced in support of this (and it’s far beyond the scope of this thread), but it’s more along the lines of a reversal of causation: more the view that things like Cosmo, for example, wouldn’t exist if the information they presented wasn’t already widely known. Essentially, that media serves to recirculate information, and to modify it, but not to introduce new forms of it.

In PUA specifically, a tendency toward this kind of interpretation was pretty clear with DeAngelo, especially in his seminars.

@Hugh:

When either men or women aren’t made aware of the common mating scripts in their culture, that’s a failure of sex-ed.

And again, this is a position on which we differ. There’s a difference between being familiar with these things because it is a matter of course for that to occur, and not being familiar with these things because of age, culture or subculture, identity, ethnicity and race, et al. And that’s in addition to, as Clarisse mentioned, how that knowledge, and the ability to utilize that knowledge, can be compromised, in various ways, by various factors and circumstances.

This isn’t just a failure of sex-ed. It’s “this is dominant culture, and if you’re not in line with it, that’s on you.”

It’s true that you’re not focused on that problem. But that’s the point that I was making: PUA is criticized precisely because it doesn’t focus on it.

Without some sort of script, we must stake women’s sexual comfort and safety on men’s ability to mentally simulate a large database of female preferences and responses, including how different types of women act when they are inexperienced, drunk or tired.

Except that, in general, we recognize these things as a matter of course. The issue is that focusing on the default script interferes with this process instead of facilitating it, examples of which can be seen in previous discussions of ASD and LMR.

The false dilemma that you’re presenting here only exists if the default script perspective is retained and centered.

@Jorge:

Any kind of interest in a girl, openly or covertly expressed is, first and foremost, a compliment to her, disregarding whether she’s actually interested on the guy or not.

It may be intended as a compliment; that doesn’t mean that, once expressed, it stays as one. And this perspective is one of the reasons why PUA, and anything resembling it, gets generalized and preemptively judged.

When that disregard is involved, it leaves little choice but to do so.

In machining, that kind of thing results in disrupted supply chains, injuries, wasted stock, downed equipment… not some abstract “hot plates” metaphor. So with that modification, apply it to PUA.

sorry, I’m having difficulties following your last reply. If you’re saying that there are other ways to learn, including context, than experience, but that people teaching should behave responsibly, then we’re certainly in agreement. But I’m not sure that is what you’re saying.

This isn’t just a failure of sex-ed. It’s “this is dominant culture, and if you’re not in line with it, that’s on you.”

Hmm, interesting – isn’t it the main argument of those arguing for a female epistemic privilege in patriarchy that *not* privileged to be unaware of the dominant culture are usually *particularly* aware of it? So, I don’t know, it seems to be a little either-or to me.

It’s true that you’re not focused on that problem. But that’s the point that I was making: PUA is criticized precisely because it doesn’t focus on it.

Yeah, and that is, a bit absurd, in my opinion. I’d agree that feminism, as opposed to the SC, is far more focused on a distant future, changing structural relatinos that, one day, may lead to happier gender relations, while the SC is concerned with helping people out given the *current* set up even if that includes reinforcing stereotypes. Given that humans have a limited lifetime, and we’re all embodying what we were brought up with, I think asking people to behave individually irrational beyond a certain degree in the name of the assumed common future good is even morally questionable, in my opinion.
I’d say that this term-incongruence is a major cause of disagreement between feminist narratives and the SC.

But, particularly in this case, I don’t think the SC is being critisized for being to concentrated on the present or for reinforcing stereotypes. It’s being critisized for, at the least, being, in parts, supportive of some members’ criminal behvaior instead of clearly and openly and credibly distancing themselves from it.

It may be intended as a compliment; that doesn’t mean that, once expressed, it stays as one. And this perspective is one of the reasons why PUA, and anything resembling it, gets generalized and preemptively judged.

It also doesn’t mean it *doesn’t* stay one in the sender’s perspective even if it isn’t received as one.

I’m saying that a short-circuited path to knowledge risks introducing serious errors, with potentially serious consequences, because the fact that it is a short-circuit prevents context from being gained. This, in itself, isn’t necessarily a problem, if one recognizes that context has not yet been gained, limits one’s actions accordingly, and works to supplement one’s knowledge in other ways, until that context has developed. (This goes to the earlier point about studying other things, and about the dangers of studying PUA in isolation.)

But that’s the problem that I was trying to highlight with the “getting that part of my life handled” view. That phrasing, and that view, works against that.

Hmm, interesting – isn’t it the main argument of those arguing for a female epistemic privilege in patriarchy that *not* privileged to be unaware of the dominant culture are usually *particularly* aware of it?

One could argue that one aspect of privilege is expecting people to be knowledgeable about dominant norms, regardless of their socioeconomic and cultural contexts, and also expecting them to be skilled in them, regardless of their access to them, and regardless of the factors that might inhibit their ability to become familiar with them. So there’d be no contradiction here. ;)

That’s an intersectional view of the issue, of course, which might not be the one that you’re familiar with.

[…] while the SC is concerned with helping people out given the *current* set up even if that includes reinforcing stereotypes.

Well… not really. What that criticism highlights is that PUA, absent that focus, is concerned with helping a very specific group of people, quite possibly at the expense of a much larger, and more vulnerable, group of people. And that’s a big problem.

In fact, it’s the problem highlighted by social justice movements in general.

It also doesn’t mean it *doesn’t* stay one in the sender’s perspective even if it isn’t received as one.

And let me explain why I find that line of explanation particularly problematic.

“It’s your birthday, and I’m doing you a favor.”

The fact that I came out of my intoxication briefly enough, and lucidly enough, to hear that, didn’t change the fact that it was rape.

What that criticism highlights is that PUA, absent that focus, is concerned with helping a very specific group of people, quite possibly at the expense of a much larger, and more vulnerable, group of people. And that’s a big problem. In fact, it’s the problem highlighted by social justice movements in general.

if so, then that is a huge contradiction in whatever social justice movement you’re referring to. You’re basically saying “I have a cardinal measure of pain, and yours doesn’t qualify even for self-help, because you’re *potentially* dangerous to someone else.” That’s an unbelievably arrogant position to hold in general, particularly for someone who just mentioned lack of empathy in others as a problem, but in *this* context it seems even more problematic to me, because it is reiterating the standard assumption about male sexual sociopathy, in other words – only a soft penis is a good penis. It’s this kind of argument that makes me jump in and defend the good parts of SC even though I don’t even identify with it, because not doing so would deny guys’ right to learn how to become better with women, reduce their perceived scarcity, and hopefully become better humans along the way. It’s this kind of argument that makes me feel that it is important to challenge the apparent discourse hegemony.

It also doesn’t mean it *doesn’t* stay one in the sender’s perspective even if it isn’t received as one.

And let me explain why I find that line of explanation particularly problematic.

“It’s your birthday, and I’m doing you a favor.”

The fact that I came out of my intoxication briefly enough, and lucidly enough, to hear that, didn’t change the fact that it was rape.

I’m sorry that happened to you. But I’m not sure what it has to do with what I said above about differing subjective interpretations of reality.

You’re basically saying “I have a cardinal measure of pain, and yours doesn’t qualify even for self-help, because you’re *potentially* dangerous to someone else.”

No, I’m not.

I’m saying “You’re portraying yourself as having general interests at heart, but your interests are restricted, and are primarily your own; and you are not considering the impact that your actions have on others. Because of this, you are dangerous.”

If that’s unjustifiable, then all social justice is unjustifiable, including the kind of criticism that you yourself advocate.

I’m sorry that happened to you. But I’m not sure what it has to do with what I said above about differing subjective interpretations of reality.

That’s precisely the point: characterizing it as a mere difference in subjective experience allows violations to be excused in the mind of the violator, on the basis of intent.

The actions under consideration are not equivalent, but the lines of thought are. And that’s where that line of explanation leads.

[…] particularly for someone who just mentioned lack of empathy in others as a problem […]

No, I didn’t. I mentioned that Hugh wasn’t considering certain things, because he wrote that he wasn’t considering them. And I wrote that focus on the dominant script can interfere with recognizing signs of fatigue, intoxication, disinterest, et al., which has been acknowledged, as well as extensively examined, in previous discussions of LMR and ASD.

Hugh mentioned empathy, and I disagreed with a point that he had raised before he got to that point.

When it comes to empathy, that would relate to participants in the thread mentioned in the OP, and I sincerely doubt, given your comments upthread, that you would find raising that point to be controversial.

In fact, this comment is my first use of that word in this thread; nothing I quoted even contained it.

and you are not considering the impact that your actions have on others. Because of this, you are dangerous.”

if so, fine. But I’m getting the impression that it’s not about “not considering” but about “considering and arriving at different conclusions”. It’s the disagreement, not the lack of empathy as such. In the latter case, it’s exactly what I said above, isn’t it?

That’s precisely the point: characterizing it as a mere difference in subjective experience allows violations to be excused in the mind of the violator, on the basis of intent.

You know, mistakes happen. Errare humanum est is one of the oldest things we know about ourselves. We’re not infallible. People make mistakes, and intent is very important. If you’re attempting to kill someone in my country, but fail to actually do it, you’ll be punished as if you had killed that person. If you kill someone by accident, you’ll punished for fatal negligence, if applicable, but not for intent to kill. Intent matters. And, yes, there are, I believe, situations in which intent can excuse the violation, because in one version of reality it may not have been one. I don’t know what your standard for consent is, but there’s no way to ever be entirely certain of anything if there’s another person’s brain involved. And that means even the most well-meaning people can make mistakes. And that *IS* different from somone who’s out there to hurt.

The actions under consideration are not equivalent, but the lines of thought are. And that’s where that line of explanation leads.

I’m sorry, but that’s the question Duerrenmatt asks in The Physicists. Was it permissible to split the atom knowingt there was a possibility that someone would abuse the knowledge and build a bomb? Isn’t all knowledge dual use? And that brings you back to – intent.

But I’m getting the impression that it’s not about “not considering” but about “considering and arriving at different conclusions”.

“Considering and arriving at different conclusions” because certain things aren’t being considered.

I mean, at base, Hugh and I are, in several cases, working off of much of the same material. The differences come from the fact that I’m considering perspectives that he isn’t, and that’s not coincidentally because I’m also part of marginalized groups that he (to my knowledge, from what he’s disclosed) isn’t.

Same material, radically different perspectives — because different information has been either included or left to others to deal with.

And as for intent: yes, intent matters.

But as in the legal situations that you mentioned, it enhances, not nullifies. You’re citing legal precedent, but arguing that the principle by which it works should, if only in certain, undefined justifiable cases, be reversed.

I’m sorry, but that’s the question Duerrenmatt asks in The Physicists. Was it permissible to split the atom knowingt there was a possibility that someone would abuse the knowledge and build a bomb?

“Considering and arriving at different conclusions” because certain things aren’t being considered.

yes, but, again, you’re the one making claims about the moral superiority of some over other perspectives. You’re the one claiming an epistemic privilege, and as such a right to judge something according to more relevant criteria.

You’re citing legal precedent, but arguing that the principle by which it works should, if only in certain, undefined justifiable cases, be reversed.

Where did I argue that the principle be reversed? The principle *is* that intent/mens rea matters.

It’s not so much The Physicists as the outcome of the Potsdam Declaration. And decades later, we’re still debating whether or not that was the right call.

No, it’s The Physicists. The question being discussed – I believe – is whether (to which extent) researching/ learning how to relate better with women is permissible if the (social) technology taught can also be used to create the bomb (rape).

If you’re attempting to kill someone in my country, but fail to actually do it, you’ll be punished as if you had killed that person. If you kill someone by accident, you’ll punished for fatal negligence, if applicable, but not for intent to kill.

The point is that attempted murder is a worse crime than involuntary manslaughter because intent to kill was present, not that involuntary manslaughter is a lesser crime than attempted murder because some other intent was present. To argue what you did —

And, yes, there are, I believe, situations in which intent can excuse the violation, because in one version of reality it may not have been one.

— is to turn this on its head, and reverse the role of mens rea.

Which is why I find it problematic when a priori claims about epistemic privilege are used when judging the morality of people’s intent (outside of a purely theoretical discussion).

Good thing that I haven’t been doing that, then.

(The only time that I discussed epistemic privilege was when you introduced it as a rebuttal, and my arguments regarding intent have been specific to intent, and distinct from anything having to do with that discussion, as the above should clearly demonstrate.)

But I’m getting the impression that it’s not about “not considering” but about “considering and arriving at different conclusions”. It’s the disagreement, not the lack of empathy as such

I may be speaking out of my own personal lexicon here, but to my mind the first sentence is pretty much synonymous with a “lack of empathy”, when you happen to arrive at a different conclusion” from someone else’s about the effect that something has on that person. If I say something you did or said makes me feel threatened, then to have empathy then at the very least you need to be able to appreciate that that statement is true, and ideally to appreciate what about the situation made it threatening. Simply saying “I disagree because I thought it was a compliment” lacks an understanding of how one appears to others. Without being able to appreciate that, how can one achieve empathy?

When either men or women aren’t made aware of the common mating scripts in their culture, that’s a failure of sex-ed.

And at what point, precisely, do we get the test on whether we have learned it sufficiently to be allowed out into the real social world? At what point in sex ed should I have been told, for instance, that “come in for coffee” means “I want to fuck you”, and at what point should I have demonstrated in either coursework or an exam situation, that I understood that convention and all the other subtleties of “common mating scripts” in my culture, so that I could be qualified to go out and have a good time? How would such education impact on culpability should X violate the boundaries of Y, assuming both X and Y have received an adequate sex education in common mating scripts?

If such education is available, but people for one reason or another do not avail themselves of it, are they then the architects of their own downfall at the hands of those who did? If this education is not readily available to some people (as is the current situation), do they then deserve blame for their lack of knowledge? Indeed, the discussion of the use of “creep” to describe socially-inept men appears in the same terms (and of course, there is the whole idea of “PUA as self-help” tying in with that theme).

On top of which, there are multiple mating scripts that are common, and it isn’t always clear which script is being used by whom. Assuming that because both sides know the scripts does not mean that people are reading from the same script in an encounter, and ignoring that fact can lead to disaster – or at the very least, the mortifying moment when one person or the other breaks with the script to point out that the scripts are different.

Without some sort of script, we must stake women’s sexual comfort and safety on men’s ability to mentally simulate a large database of female preferences and responses, including how different types of women act when they are inexperienced, drunk or tired. That seems… inefficient.

Being ethical often seems “inefficient” in a commodity-based (i.e. capitalist) economy, and in the social norms that are informed by and concurrent with that economic reality. Nevertheless, if ethical behaviour is valuable, then the cost expended is efficient.

Besides, as Infra says:

Except that, in general, we recognize these things as a matter of course. The issue is that focusing on the default script interferes with this process instead of facilitating it, examples of which can be seen in previous discussions of ASD and LMR.

There are many apparently “inefficient” processes that the human brain appears to be highly efficient at performing (the equations to be solved in catching a ball thrown into the air, for example), and arguably modelling different ways of behaving is one of them (for instance, most people are able to form multiple different models of how they expect their friends to behave, based on the different personalities of their friends). The effect could be like the “gamesmanship” technique of complimenting an opponent on some aspect of his or her technique – something that is totally natural to them – so that thinking about how they do it messes up the player’s natural instinct for it and throws the opponent off their game.

…it’s grossly unfair to men to shift 100% of the communication and prediction responsibility to them.

I don’t think that that is a consequence of what Infra talks about. What’s being suggested is that men should be aware that their scripts might not be shared, and to be alert to the possibility that there are other ways of seeing the world and being or moving in it than a single script or set of scripts that forms “a basis for a potentially shared set of assumptions about how sexuality will proceed” but that there may be others. If you find yourself in a script that is different from the one you know, there are techniques for figuring out the nature and rules of the new script.

That isn’t about “Expecting men to know all that information” but rather, teaching men and women tools to identify and learn new information as they go along without making any disastrous missteps, rather than giving them only the tools to operate within a narrow range of scripts. While relying on a limited range of scripts certainly speeds up reaction times (because there are fewer hypotheses to test or simulate), it also increases the chances of catastrophic failure. When the consequences of such failure impact others more than oneself, it is clearly unethical to pursue the higher risk simply for convenience.

But I don’t think that it would necessarily be indicative of a lack of empathy.

In fact, I’d say that wording that response with “empathy” was what Sam might have been assuming: that challenging someone on the basis that they’re not recognizing, or paying attention to, what someone else considers to be a valid concern, is equivalent to saying that they lack the facility of empathy.

Not a light charge, and not something to be suggested without some degree of evidence.

Pickup (as an extension of the general culture) does indeed marginalize non-normative women, but that’s not what I’m focused on here.

Infra, you seem to be interpreting my statement contrary to what I meant. When I said that I not focused on pickup’s marginalization of non-normative women, I did not mean to imply that the subject doesn’t inform my perspective. Rather, I was trying to focus on a related but distinct subject of lack of knowledge about norms, rather than lack of conformity to them.

If someone merely doesn’t conform to gender norms, that does not represent a problem with them, or a lack of education. Yet if some doesn’t even know about the local norms, I would characterize that as a lack of sexual education and a cultural problem.

I think you might be underestimating the benefits to everyone of norms (or at least, knowledge of norms) in facilitating communication. For example, language itself—the very meaning of the words “yes” and “no”—is based on norms about how those sounds should be interpreted.

Norms are not merely a vehicle of marginalization, they are also a vehicle of communication. Even if you are a non-normative person, then perhaps you can signal that you are non-normative, which will be very useful to communicate to other people what sort of practices you don’t enjoy. With a shared knowledge of what the norms are, non-normative people can step outside of them.

It’s easier for everyone to understand one norm, rather than modeling someone’s psychology completely from scratch prior to initiating with every person you are trying to date. The latter practice is unreliable, and since it’s unreliable, it’s not necessarily safe, either.

In my view, sexuality tends to be both more streamlined and more safe when people have more channels of communication, including implicit channels (e.g. using non-verbal communication, or touch, or logistics to communicate). Unfortunately, not everyone shares the knowledge of how to interpret these methods of communication. But does that mean that those channels should be abandoned, or does it mean that those channels should be made available to more people through education?

Infra said:

In the first: because I’m a member of marginalized groups that Hugh has essentially said should deal with the effects by better educating themselves.

A lack of education may not necessarily be the fault of the uneducated person. It could also be the fault of the culture in general.

I very much understand the importance of norms. As mentioned elsewhere, I’m not that far off the boat, and grew up hearing languages spoken other than English, and have traveled both within and outside of the States, albeit not extensively; and this also relates to the queer-vs-assimilationist issue mentioned, as well as to that of the “umbrella.” I don’t underestimate the import, or their value — but neither do I underestimate the degree of debate surrounding both.

I’m also aware, because of these things, and also because of issues related to class and ability, of how “lack of education” can be due to culture in general, and aspects of culture in particular, instead of the individual.

None of these points, however, alter my position. In fact, I’ve taken it primarily because of them.

I don’t think that your perspective ignores marginalized individuals. I do think, though, that it is one primarily focused on an “acculturation” perspective regarding the dominant narrative, and that’s one of the main points on which, in general, I’m opposed.

And at what point, precisely, do we get the test on whether we have learned it sufficiently to be allowed out into the real social world? At what point in sex ed should I have been told, for instance, that “come in for coffee” means “I want to fuck you”, and at what point should I have demonstrated in either coursework or an exam situation, that I understood that convention and all the other subtleties of “common mating scripts” in my culture, so that I could be qualified to go out and have a good time?

I think we could ask the same questions about rock-climbing, sky-diving, or BDSM. It might be difficult to articulate exactly what people need to know to engage in those practices safely, but we do place some responsibility on those cultures to educate people about the relevant norms, and we place responsibility on people themselves. We don’t place 100% of the responsibility on their activity partners if something goes wrong, unless we have a specific reason to.

I’m not able to articulate exactly how responsibility for promoting safe, sane, and consensual interactions should be distributed in every situation. What I am questioning is the notion that it’s dishonest or harmful for initiators to use implicit and ambiguous communication that not everyone can parse, even though plenty of people can.

If this education is not readily available to some people (as is the current situation), do they then deserve blame for their lack of knowledge?

No… but their partners aren’t necessarily at fault, either.

Being ethical often seems “inefficient” in a commodity-based (i.e. capitalist) economy, and in the social norms that are informed by and concurrent with that economic reality. Nevertheless, if ethical behaviour is valuable, then the cost expended is efficient.

I do not believe that expecting initiators to read people’s minds encourages safety to the degree that you are looking for. Like you, I support “teaching men and women tools to identify and learn new information as they go along without making any disastrous missteps, rather than giving them only the tools to operate within a narrow range of scripts,” but I do note that people’s ability to identify and learn new information is limited, especially if that information is not made explicit.

Ethical behavior is valuable, but so are other values, such as people being able to have sex at a faster-than-glacial pace. Actually, I would disagree with conceptualizing ethics as purely valuing safety. If safety was the only value, then we should ban sex because it’s simply too dangerous.

For example, getting rid of communication like “come up for coffee” as part of sexual escalation would be costly. Well, getting rid of any one piece of implicit communication isn’t a big deal. But if we got rid of every piece of implicit communication of that sort, then sexual communication would be impoverished.

That isn’t about “Expecting men to know all that information” but rather, teaching men and women tools to identify and learn new information as they go along without making any disastrous missteps, rather than giving them only the tools to operate within a narrow range of scripts.

I’m glad that you say “both men and women.” In my view, a good way to promote safety is to place the responsibility for creating a safe, sane, and consensual (SSC) situation on both the initiating and receptive partner, rather than mainly placing it on the initiating partner. And it’s probably easier to anticipate what your partner is going to do if they are helping you, rather than expecting you to read their mind and blaming you if you mess up.

This isn’t just a failure of sex-ed. It’s “this is dominant culture, and if you’re not in line with it, that’s on you.”

I am advising that people be educated about the norms of the dominant local culture so they know what to expect, especially if they wish to take advantage of some of the scripts of the dominant local culture (such as the script that men are supposed to be the primary initiators). I’m not suggesting that people play by these norms, or like them, just that it’s a good thing know about them. And if they don’t know, it’s probably not their fault, but it’s also not the fault of the people they are interacting with.

For example, if you extend your hand for a handshake, and the other person is vastly non-normative and misinterprets your gesture as attempted assault, that may not be their fault that nobody told them what a handshake is, but it’s not your fault either. Similarly, if you ask someone for a hug goodbye, and they weren’t expecting it and have trouble saying “no” because they were unaware of the norm of a goodbye hug, then that’s not either of your fault.

The issue is that focusing on the default script interferes with this process instead of facilitating it, examples of which can be seen in previous discussions of ASD and LMR.

Knowledge of default scripts might interfere with educating men about the preferences of non-normative women. Nevertheless, it’s very useful for educating women about the initiation procedures of typical men. For example, being educated about pickup could help women to avoid touching guys on the arm, or going to up to look at their apartments, if they are not interested in receiving future advances.

Furthermore, it’s useful for women to know that men might engage in practices like these not merely because they are coercive jerks, but because they are trying to please her and create a dating experience based on their background knowledge about what other women might enjoy or expect. It is highly entitled to instead say “you must initiate with me, but you can’t rely on your knowledge of other women to read me, you must learn to decode my signals from scratch with no help from me, and if you get it wrong, then you are a horrible person…oh, but don’t be too slow!”

Anyway, I’d like to back up a little bit. This exchange got started with AB referring to negs and active distinterest as “dishonest,” and potentially dangerous because they might lead to situations where she was in the gatekeeper role without expecting it (AB can correct me if I’m not summarizing her view accurately). I argue that negs and active disinterest are complex social signals that not dishonest merely because some women have trouble parsing them, and that women being completely blindsided by PUA advances after those behaviors isn’t necessarily the fault of the PUA.

I think we all agree that some people have difficulties anticipating how people will initiate with them, that different people send different signals, that some people are inexperienced, and that some people have specific vulnerabilities or difficulties saying “no.” So, what’s the solution? What responsibilities do initiators have? What responsibilities (if any) do receptive partners have?

I’m not suggesting that people play by these norms, or like them, just that it’s a good thing know about them.

But here’s the problem: when PUA techniques and tactics are applied, based on those norms, the options change. Yes, it’s possible to signal that one is non-normative, as you’ve mentioned; but this assumes that (1) one is capable of doing so, (2) that it will be recognized, acknowledged, and respected, and (3) that one will be able to do so, and be confident in their ability to do so, without averse consequence. And none of those can be taken for granted.

Signal that you’re not interested in playing, and hope that this works; or leave, even if that disrupts what you’re doing; or play even though you don’t want to, and play in a way that makes the other person leave the game. That’s what the options become.

Further, even if someone is normative, as Clarisse pointed out earlier on, their ability to play by those norms can be attenuated; and the same applies to one’s ability to utilize one’s knowledge of those norms, regardless of whether one is normative or not. All of which adds up to “sounds good in theory, but has some serious flaws in practice.”

And finally, the handshake and goodbye hug are examples of a different type: they’re one-off actions. Pickup tends to be persistent, and often includes specific principles of persistence, as we’re both aware. The comparison simply doesn’t hold.

This doesn’t just apply to PUA, of course; the same criticism applies to this kind of advice in general (which applies to the “not touching on the arm” thing, for example — which sounds disturbingly akin to “make sure that you don’t send the wrong signals”). But since PUA focuses on intentionally identifying and applying such techniques, that’s what I’m highlighting.

And the point is simply this: that suggestion can’t achieve what it’s intended to.

Knowledge of default scripts might interfere with educating men about the preferences of non-normative women.

Except that the “default script” is more than “man initiates, woman responds.” It also tends to involve concepts such as token resistance, reasons why women would hesitate to say yes to sex, and default sexual practices; that’s why ASD and LMR are concepts to begin with, why there are “escalation ladders,” and why the default script has the potential to interfere with recognizing the responses and preferences of normative individuals as well. There is no situation in which it has a “no-cost” application.

But this is 101 for both of us; I’m simply mentioning what wasn’t.

Furthermore, it’s useful for women to know that men might engage in practices like these not merely because they are coercive jerks, but because they are trying to please her and create a dating experience based on their background knowledge about what other women might enjoy or expect.

Which basically equates to asking people to suspend judgment. It isn’t enough to ask that; reasons need to be provided that justify it. As AB wrote, “Women have those defences up for a reason, even if you don’t acknowledge or respect it;” saying that certain things are or can be done for a positive reason, or to create a positive experience, simply doesn’t pass muster.

Being aware of what a script might include can be useful. I’m not arguing that.

However, when it comes to whether or not any given elements bode well or ill, it’s questionable whether or not it’s appropriate to have that determined by those applying them, instead of those primarily subjected to them, considering that those subjected to them are usually the ones experiencing the end effects.

I’m aware that you’re not, strictly speaking, arguing for determination. But as I wrote, it does work out to suspension of judgment, or at least, second-guessing, and that at the request of those applying the techniques. Same ballpark. And rejecting this doesn’t reduce things to tabula rasa; it simply places the ability to ascertain risk in the hands of those most at risk, which is where it should be.

I argue that negs and active disinterest are complex social signals that not dishonest merely because some women have trouble parsing them, and that women being completely blindsided by PUA advances after those behaviors isn’t necessarily the fault of the PUA.

On the neg, I’d disagree with AB; but it should also be clear, from our previous discussion on the neg, that my take on it is anomalous. (I believe that I’d equated it with a queen sacrifice at the time.) Using the standard, “down a notch” definition, I’d be in line with her view. The same applies with active disinterest.

The reason for this is that neither of these techniques are just signals that someone might have difficulty parsing: they actively and intentionally dissimulate one’s intentions, which means that the possibility of being taken by surprise, being subjected to unwanted advances after one had thought that they had stopped, et al., is dramatically increased.

Does this mean that miscommunication is necessarily the fault of the PUA? No. There could be situations in which they genuinely thought that the technique would be seen through. But let’s not pretend that those would be anything other than exceptions.

Things like these are called “false disqualifiers” for a reason.

Proceeding to the questions at the end of your post, I think, presupposes some substantial agreement with the points that you raised. We’re not quite there yet.

The point is that attempted murder is a worse crime than involuntary manslaughter because intent to kill was present, not that involuntary manslaughter is a lesser crime than attempted murder because some other intent was present.

It cuts both ways. Of course involuntary manslaughter is a lesser crime than murder, and that is also because some other intent was present. Otherwise it would have been murder.

Snowdrop (#103),

If I say something you did or said makes me feel threatened, then to have empathy then at the very least you need to be able to appreciate that that statement is true, and ideally to appreciate what about the situation made it threatening.

Oh, sure, that doesn’t make it *a reasonable assumption*, though. If shaking hands isn’t commonly considered an insult but a display of respect, and you said, after I shook your hand, that I insulted you by shaking your hand, then, of course, I can’t change your feeling insulted, and your subjective reality is your subjective reality, but that still doesn’t turn “I’m going to insult him” into a plausible expectation for anyone extending their hands to “show their respect”. And ex-post, your subjecive feeling insulted doesn’t make shaking your hand any less of a subjective display of respect.

If more and more people started feeling like you do, and they expressed their feelings, then at some point shaking hands could no longer automatically be assumed to be a show of respect ex-ante, and possibly, it would become customary to ask “may I shake your hand” before extending one’s hand.

It cuts both ways. Of course involuntary manslaughter is a lesser crime than murder, and that is also because some other intent was present. Otherwise it would have been murder.

Except that that isn’t how one determines whether or not someone is charged with attempted murder or involuntary manslaughter.

That’s how one defends against the charge of attempted murder, in the context of trial, and when against strong evidence. And even then, the aim isn’t to establish that the alternate motivation reduces the offense, but that it invalidates the original claim of intent to kill. (As was exemplified in a trial that’s been followed closely here, concluding earlier this year.)

Again: you’re reversing the role of mens rea.

I’ll note that this comes from having an acquaintance who was both charged with, and served time for, involuntary manslaughter. (Provided medication to another individual without prescription; cardiac arrest.) So yes, I’m somewhat familiar with it.

when there’s there’s no conclusive objective evidence then of course, the subjective perspective of the defendant becomes relevant with respect to deciding if/what to charge him with.

And even then, the aim isn’t to establish that the alternate motivation reduces the offense, but that it invalidates the original claim of intent to kill.

precisely. And without that intent, it’s not murder, although it could be the consequence of negligence.

And isn’t it basically that what this is about? Trying to identify standards with respect to what’s intent to hurt, and what’s negligent behavior, and what’s the other person’s responsibility to communicate clearly (so disrespecting the information becomes *at least* negligent behaviour), when it comes to interactions with other people, especially flirting/sexualised interactions.

when there’s there’s no conclusive objective evidence then of course, the subjective perspective of the defendant becomes relevant with respect to deciding if/what to charge him with.

The presence or absence of conclusive evidence is irrelevant with regard to subjective perspective, except in terms of whether or not the evidence can support the claims of mens rea. I highlighted its use as a defense tactic, and in that type of circumstance, for one reason: it’s a desperation move.

That’s blatantly obvious when it’s used at trial, and it’s equally obvious when it’s applied in arguments as it’s being applied here.

I mean, I don’t know how many different ways this needs to be stated: when it comes to what the defendant is charged with, their subjective perspective is irrelevant, unless, and only unless, it matches the criteria for mens rea. This is the basic principle of concurrence, and fundamental to Western criminal law. Arguing otherwise is a bit like saying that a jury verdict is valid, not because they considered the evidence, but because they were sequestered, and weren’t influenced by other people’s consideration of the evidence. Technically, yes, it’s true — but it’s an argument that would be used to refute an attempt at appeal or change of venue, not one that would be used to describe why a jury verdict is valid in the first place. To describe it that way is to reverse the understanding of what a jury is, from people who do consider evidence, to people who don’t.

The closest that anything comes to what you’re arguing are mitigating factors such as provocation or diminished capacity, which don’t have to do with subjective perspective, but with factors that can interfere with a “reasonable person’s” ability to control their actions.

Subjective perspective in general becomes relevant, to the degree that it does, in sentencing.

And isn’t it basically that what this is about?

The above, I think, should clarify my position on that.

Talking about subjective perspective can be informative when it comes to how to hold someone accountable, to what degree, in what way, for how long, and with what degree of severity. But that’s a world apart from saying that leniency should be granted to actions because they might not have been intended in the way that they were received.

The first asks someone to enter certain things into consideration once they’ve made their judgment; the second asks them to hesitate before making one.

The fact is, PUA has already been judged; there’s nothing wrong, prima facie, with entering arguments into consideration for amending that judgment. But what’s being done is more along the lines of asking that the judgment be voided, so that the discussion can start from a clean and equal position; and further, that’s being combined with arguments to preempt harsh judgment from taking place.

The presence or absence of conclusive evidence is irrelevant with regard to subjective perspective, except in terms of whether or not the evidence can support the claims of mens rea.

I’m not sure we disagree, because, honestly, I can’t see the difference between what I said, and what you’re saying here.

Talking about subjective perspective can be informative when it comes to how to hold someone accountable, to what degree, in what way, for how long, and with what degree of severity. But that’s a world apart from saying that leniency should be granted to actions because they might not have been intended in the way that they were received.

But what you’re doing here is you’re giving the recipient the sole power in estblishin what *happened*. If there’s different perspectives, it becomes difficult to establish what *happened*. You’re giving that power exclusively to the recipient, and that’s not how *any* interaction involving two brains can work.

Oh, sure, that doesn’t make it *a reasonable assumption*, though. If shaking hands isn’t commonly considered an insult but a display of respect, and you said, after I shook your hand, that I insulted you by shaking your hand, then, of course, I can’t change your feeling insulted, and your subjective reality is your subjective reality, but that still doesn’t turn “I’m going to insult him” into a plausible expectation for anyone extending their hands to “show their respect”. And ex-post, your subjecive feeling insulted doesn’t make shaking your hand any less of a subjective display of respect.

Equally, saying “I didn’t mean any insult” does little to remove the insult caused. It doesn’t matter how reasonable an assumption it is after the fact; what matters is what you do about the (unexpected by you) result. So a person using the faculty of empathy will realise that the movement to shake hands was perceived differently from expected and, rather than change those perceptions, deal with them appropriately. For instance, “I’m sorry for the insult, I shall make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Maybe later, once emotions have calmed, it can be explained that a handshake is a gesture of respect in the communities with which you are familiar, and that this differently-cultured person might find the information useful. If, on the other hand, there is something about the personal or professional relationship between “me” and “you” in the situation that means that normally, I perceive a handshake as positive, but in this situation perceive it as an insult (for instance, the infamous picture of President Robert Mugabe shaking the hand of Jack Straw MP – not exactly an “insult” but certainly embarrassing for Mr Straw and deemed inappropriate in his culture) then the handshake is, in effect, a violation of a boundary and regardless of its intention, is assuming a familiarity that is not offered.

With Infra’s comment:

The first asks someone to enter certain things into consideration once they’ve made their judgment; the second asks them to hesitate before making one.

And Hugh’s earlier use of a handshake as a perceived threat (rather than insult): consider from the person receiving the handshake. This person sees a movement that might or might not be the beginning of an assault (say, a sharp finger-jab to the kidneys, or something). Is it reasonable to say, “wait and see if it’s an assault”? Or is it better to say, “take evasive action, and then figure out what threat is present”? If I wait, then I might be incapacitated, or at least, experience a lot of nonconsensual pain. If I react protectively first, then I at least have the option of responding to the proffered hand later.

@ Hugh:

I do not believe that expecting initiators to read people’s minds encourages safety to the degree that you are looking for. Like you, I support “teaching men and women tools to identify and learn new information as they go along without making any disastrous missteps, rather than giving them only the tools to operate within a narrow range of scripts,” but I do note that people’s ability to identify and learn new information is limited, especially if that information is not made explicit.

I think it’s only as limited as you imply, if people are unaware that they may need to assimilate new information, or adapt to changing circumstances. The discussion of how to initiate a kiss seemed to reveal precisely this: theoretically, I feel I should ask first but I can’t think of a real life situation where I needed to: but I was able to kiss without asking and still do so ethically, because I was able to respond to changing responses and abort the kiss early if it appeared that a partner was not receptive after all.

As Infra points out, PUA tends to override signals or reinterpret them as a part of the same paradigm, so that the signals for “I use a different script from you” are reinterpreted as part of the same script, and thus effectively overridden or ignored. Thus, the teaching of the dominant paradigm effectively narrows the range of possible interpretations or understandings and reduces the ability to respond appropriately to signals originating from outside of that paradigm.

Not to mention that, if “people’s ability to identify and learn new information is limited” then that goes for the receptive partner as well as the initiator.

As an initiator, a person has a responsibility to respond to the initial consequences rather than proceed according to plan. She or he also has a responsibility to be aware of the potential consequences of those actions and any subsequent actions. Because the initiator is making a choice to act, he or she is voluntarily taking responsibility. This also means that he or she is voluntarily putting him or herself into a situation where there will be a need to be alert to new information and the potential for unexpected responses, and to be able to deal with those in a responsible and appropriate manner rather than simply following a script. On that basis, it is incumbent on the initiator to be aware of the range of possible responses, and not on the receiver to be aware of what the initiator might intend.

…based on their background knowledge about what other women might enjoy or expect.

Well, that in itself is insulting and potentially threatening. People (including women, who are also people – radical notion though that may be in this world) generally like to be regarded as individuals, and approached accordingly. Relying on what other people like to decide what one person likes is like trying to guess what a person looks like based on looking at photos of other people. Sure, you’re probably okay with “a head, two eyes, two arms, two legs, a nose, a mouth, two ears,” but even then there’s enough variation in those (well, except for the head, although having two wouldn’t be impossible, I suppose) to cast doubt on the assumptions.

For example, getting rid of communication like “come up for coffee” as part of sexual escalation would be costly. Well, getting rid of any one piece of implicit communication isn’t a big deal. But if we got rid of every piece of implicit communication of that sort, then sexual communication would be impoverished.

Well, I’m not sure it exists anyway – it’s only communication if it successfully transfers the idea from one person to the other. If that process is unreliable, and the initiator is unaware of that unreliability, then it isn’t communication, it’s an excuse. To be honest, I don’t know what the costs would be of doing away with obscure reference (which is how I view things like “come in for coffee”) and relying on direct implication or explicit statement or overlaid implication (that is, using a sequence of implicit statements to test whether the first indirect or obscure reference has been correctly interpreted – e.g. “come in for coffee?” “I don’t like coffee” “I haven’t got any”). And that last bit, of course, is why you can still use obscure reference ethically and safely: it’s possible to check understanding by a layered interaction.

Layered interaction is the thing that I find missing in your argument. It’s the means by which a person can relatively easily assimilate new data and responses, and learn a new person, without causing a catastrophic breakdown (“landmines” notwithstanding). Rather than force the observation to fit the theory, it allows testing new theories and adapting to the present reality (i.e. the needs/desires/expectations of the specific person in front of you). And that’s what I was talking about with the “kissing” situation.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the only choice is between accepting the handshake, or making a retaliatory strike – the option of taking evasive action and then resetting seems not to be present for you. Your

It is highly entitled to instead say “you must initiate with me, but you can’t rely on your knowledge of other women to read me, you must learn to decode my signals from scratch with no help from me, and if you get it wrong, then you are a horrible person…oh, but don’t be too slow!”

implies that this is how you see the responses of other people. Maybe there is a case for teaching non-retaliatory defensive postures for receivers of advances, but equally there has to be teaching of recognising a defensive posture and respecting it rather than seeing it as a “shit test” or ASD or similar.

I’m not sure we disagree, because, honestly, I can’t see the difference between what I said, and what you’re saying here.

Let A be the existence of mens rea; let B be the relevance other intentions.

¬((¬A) ⊃ B).

Instead, (¬A) ⊕ A.

You’re giving that power exclusively to the recipient, and that’s not how *any* interaction involving two brains can work.

No, it isn’t how any interaction involving two brains work.

But it is, to a degree, how interactions tend to work when they involve two bodies, and your asserted two brain interaction is, at this point, a theoretical construct.

And “to a degree” is important. I am not placing power exclusively in the hands of the recipient. To the contrary: my statement about it being prima facie acceptable to introduce arguments for amending judgments directly contradicts that, and what I’m arguing for is a matter of relative priority, not exclusivity.

It doesn’t matter how reasonable an assumption it is after the fact; what matters is what you do about the (unexpected by you) result.

entirely different aspect, in my opinion. And again, the entire responsibility is placed on the initiator. I mean, the initiator could be also reasonably insulted that his handshake was not appreciated but considered an insult.

So a person using the faculty of empathy will realise that the movement to shake hands was perceived differently from expected and, rather than change those perceptions, deal with them appropriately.

What’s appropriately? To be honest, I can’t really see why your suggestion –

For instance, “I’m sorry for the insult, I shall make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

is more appropriate than explaining the gesture right away.

This person sees a movement that might or might not be the beginning of an assault (say, a sharp finger-jab to the kidneys, or something). Is it reasonable to say, “wait and see if it’s an assault”? Or is it better to say, “take evasive action, and then figure out what threat is present”? If I wait, then I might be incapacitated, or at least, experience a lot of nonconsensual pain. If I react protectively first, then I at least have the option of responding to the proffered hand later.

Yeah. Here again, I would say that – assuming that the person extending the hand wasn’t performing some group-specific gesture that’s reminiscent of attempting to, say, slap someone – that’s a rather problematic argument. What would you say if it was used by a white person who felt threatened by a black person’s attempt to shake hands?

Also –

sorry, you don’t think there’s a contradiction in these statements?

because I was able to respond to changing responses and abort the kiss early if it appeared that a partner was not receptive after all.

Equally, saying “I didn’t mean any insult” does little to remove the insult caused. It doesn’t matter how reasonable an assumption it is after the fact;

Also –

Relying on what other people like to decide what one person likes is like trying to guess what a person looks like based on looking at photos of other people.

except that a person’s hidden true preferences are usually not as observable as the person’s looks – even though looks can, of course, deceive.

it’s only communication if it successfully transfers the idea from one person to the other. If that process is unreliable, and the initiator is unaware of that unreliability, then it isn’t communication, it’s an excuse.

No, it’s really not. Did you read Clarisse’s book? The part about what she called “strategic ambiguity”?

It is highly entitled to instead say “you must initiate with me, but you can’t rely on your knowledge of other women to read me, you must learn to decode my signals from scratch with no help from me, and if you get it wrong, then you are a horrible person…oh, but don’t be too slow!”

What would you say if it was used by a white person who felt threatened by a black person’s attempt to shake hands?

That, if the person making the comparison is a POC or has earned the name of ally, they’re making a point about how such arguments can lead to blatantly wrong conclusions when considered outside of the context of structural factors such as institutionalized racism.

Or that, if the person making the comparison is not a POC, and has not earned that name, they may merely be appropriating the Black experience to score one.

I keep trying to think of how I can add to the discussion, but I continue to struggle with formulating something pertinent and useful. I do want to throw something into the mix though so let me show some thanks:

@AB both in this thread and many of the others I’ve seen both on Clarisse’s blog and on Feminist Critics I find your posts very informative. I don’t usually agree with most of your opinions, but I feel that your perspective is very valuable in helping me form my own.

@Hugh It’s nice to see you posting. I started reading feminist critics because you have a knack for expressing exactly how I feel, but much more elegantly than I could have phrased.

Of course, my thanks to everyone else as well, I just wanted to highlight AB and Hugh since I’ve yet to participate in a discussion with them until now.

And finally, the handshake and goodbye hug are examples of a different type: they’re one-off actions. Pickup tends to be persistent, and often includes specific principles of persistence, as we’re both aware. The comparison simply doesn’t hold.

While pickup is persistent, doesn’t it also contain discrete actions, in which case the comparison would hold?

This doesn’t just apply to PUA, of course; the same criticism applies to this kind of advice in general (which applies to the “not touching on the arm” thing, for example — which sounds disturbingly akin to “make sure that you don’t send the wrong signals”).

In your view, are there any possible cases where a receptive partner can send the “wrong signals”?

However, when it comes to whether or not any given elements bode well or ill, it’s questionable whether or not it’s appropriate to have that determined by those applying them, instead of those primarily subjected to them, considering that those subjected to them are usually the ones experiencing the end effects.

That sounds like an excellent argument for why receptive partners might benefit from communicating their preferences. Receptive partners have a comparative advantage in making sure that initiators know their preferences. Why turn dating into a safety quiz for initiators where wrong answers are costly to both people? Why not just tell initiators the answers?

The reason for this is that neither of these techniques are just signals that someone might have difficulty parsing: they actively and intentionally dissimulate one’s intentions, which means that the possibility of being taken by surprise, being subjected to unwanted advances after one had thought that they had stopped, et al., is dramatically increased.

I think we have a different understand of the probable effect of those techniques. Let’s look at an article on active disinterest by TylerDurden himself, in which he says (emphases mine):

Some guys (I can’t remember who) re-labelled the term Active Disinterest as “Tentative Interest”. I think this came from Swinggcat, I’m not sure. To me this is all the same thing
[…]
I personally will pull a lot of stripper type stuff, like coquettish “You can’t have me” looks. But in doing so, the fact that you’re subcommunicating “you can’t have me” *assumes* that the vibe between you is sexual. Otherwise, the idea of her not HAVING YOU wouldn’t come up at all.
[…]
You could then shoot her a playful nod like “Not gonna happen”. Then engage the friends a bit, even though the hot girl knows there’s something between you, and watch her work to get your attention by trying to cut in.
[…]
Even shoot her a touch on the shoulder and raise your eyebrows, and back off again. Often she’ll throw herself up in your face at this point, and from there you can work her directly because she’s chosen you. With group theory, and ignoring the target, that doesn’t always mean *full* ignorance.
[…]
Active Disinterest does not mean that you are A-Sexual.

TylerDurden seems to use active disinterest to signal tentative sexual interest, and to inspire interest. I’ve also seen PUAs talk about hiding their level of interest until they are able to “display value” and get the woman interested in them. That’s very different from using active disinterest to surprise people with unwanted advances.

Even if active disinterest leads a woman to believe that a PUA is completely not interested, he will reveal his intentions very soon through kino, attempting to number close, or attempting to isolate or change venue. It’s true that those advances could be a surprise and turn out to be unwanted, but as long as the advances aren’t pushy, the level of surprise and difficulty of refusing should not be out of the range that people typically experience while dating. Even indirect PUA methods may telegraph more interest than a shy or inexperienced non-PUA trying to initiate.

Can you describe a likely hypothetical scenario where active disinterest (as advocated by PUAs) would contribute to some significant risk of a dangerous sorts of surprise or unwanted advance? That would help me understand where you are coming from.

While pickup is persistent, doesn’t it also contain discrete actions, in which case the comparison would hold?

Not really. The point isn’t that the individual actions are discrete; it’s that because the handshake and goodbye hug are one-off actions, and specifically, ones that occur in the context of greeting and parting, the context surrounding them is different than the context that occurs in a situation framed by, or motivated by, persistence. A one-off action can be isolated and discussed, and thus made easier to comprehend; discrete actions in persistent sequence don’t readily allow for that.

I mentioned in a different thread here that one of the places I’ve traveled to was Hachioji, in Tokyo; for this, I’m drawing on my experiences of that type, there.

In your view, are there any possible cases where a receptive partner can send the “wrong signals”?

I think that suggesting that it would be good for someone to be aware of what touching someone on the arm might mean, because that might be taken as a sign that advances would be welcomed, shifts responsibility so far to that individual as to almost entirely discredit such an argument. Similarly, moving from that to asking if there are “any possible cases” [emphasis yours] where the “wrong signals” could be sent does little to build credibility. Which isn’t to touch on the subject of going up to the residence; and given the subject of the OP, the clarity of why that’s a problem should be crystal.

If you’re asking about the possibility that miscommunication can occur, and not be unilateral: yes, I’d agree that it can.

But I will not grant support to something that verges toward modesty doctrine, and that’s what your phrasing strikes me as being similar to. I sincerely doubt that doing so is your aim; but as worded, I cannot, and I will not, sign on with it.

That sounds like an excellent argument for why receptive partners might benefit from communicating their preferences.

True. As with what I mentioned previously, however, it’s more workable in theory than in practice. The same three issues are involved: (1) capability, (2) recognition, acknowledgment, and respect, and (3) ability to do so safely, and confidence in this. None of which can be assumed.

And again, there’s the issues of the default script, beyond “man initiates, woman responds.” Answers, even when given, can be obscured, unrecognized, or directly overridden, especially when framed as ASD or LMR. Explicit communication might avoid this, and does in circumstances where people agree to it — which brings in the three points mentioned above — but as you’ve argued, explicit communication isn’t always viable.

Further: it isn’t exactly uncommon, in open discussions, to see PUAs specifically reject and refute explicitly stated preferences because they don’t accord with theory, often by simply stating that those expressing the preferences are anomalies, and don’t invalidate the theories in general. And this is hardly a thing that occurs just with PUA.

But as before: this is 101 for both of us.

With the active disinterest point: some of the things that I found most relevant were the parts that you omitted. For example, going on the first section that you quoted:

But that said, I assume that guys are coming across like MEN here, and there is a sexual vibe between them and the girls already. Many guys I’ve seen though will take this too far, which is understandable, but IMO it’s a mistake.

In context, it’s strongly implied that he’s using active disinterest as a way of justifying a backing-off move from what other theories, including his, might imply. Additionally, his motivations for altering the theory of active disinterest itself can be justifiably questioned:

It doesn’t mean get pre-occupied and distracted from the goal, though, by being focused on the wrong things. Otherwise you’ll get cases like the hot girls walking off so their UG friend can have a chance with you, which some newbies have reported.

In sum, it isn’t so much “active disinterest” as it is a modified, lighter version of his approach, given that name.

The issue that I had, though, was with your statement that if a woman is blindsided by techniques such as active disinterest, that is not the fault of the PUA. Insofar as those techniques work to pretend something that isn’t the case, regardless of the motive, and regardless of how day-to-day the consequences might be, I don’t see how that can be supported: if you prevent something from being seen, and this results in someone else being surprised when it’s made visible, it isn’t their fault for not seeing it earlier on. The only way that argument could be supported is if the PUA intended for the technique to fail.

And I’m not convinced that hiding one’s level of interest until an appropriate circumstance opens up — whether through DHVs or otherwise — is in the same category as active disinterest, either. That, generally speaking, could very well fall into the category of tact. Clarisse’s article about being asked out, for example, deals with that subject in ways along those lines, but wouldn’t fall into that category.

The issue, really, is one of whether or not someone has any kind of right to know whether or not someone has designs on them, so to speak. It’s another point that AB raised earlier on: that not mentioning things that aren’t relevant isn’t the same as withholding things that are, and if knowing that someone might be interested enough in you to hit on you is relevant, then intentionally dissembling otherwise becomes questionable at best.

And if we look at our previous exchanges, it’s clear that it is relevant: this is one of the things that provides an individual with the opportunity to signal that they aren’t interested, available, normative, et al. Just as focusing on the default script can obscure what may be necessary or vital signals, active disinterest can do the same. (If you still require hypotheticals, they’d be derived from this.)

Hiding one’s level of interest until an appropriate window appears, however, is slightly different. Unlike active disinterest, it relies on waiting for positive signals to occur before proceeding, and thus has some measure of safety built in.

Let A be the existence of mens rea; let B be the relevance other intentions.

¬((¬A) ⊃ B).

Instead, (¬A) ⊕ A.

I’m sorry, this still doesn’t make sense to me. I checked, again, with a dictionary, and I’d like to say that I was using mens rea as “willful intent” while there seems to be the possibilty to interpret it as “awareness of wrongdoing”. The latter may or may not be the consequence of an action carried out with willful intent, or an action carried out unpremediated (without willful intent), but “willful intent” is the requirement for the charge. Absence of willful intent thus invalidates the charge (of murder, as per the case above).

I am not placing power exclusively in the hands of the recipient. To the contrary: my statement about it being prima facie acceptable to introduce arguments for amending judgments directly contradicts that, and what I’m arguing for is a matter of relative priority, not exclusivity.

So, basically, everyone who’s saying “hello” to someone is logically infringing someone else’s assumed right to not be talked to, but that infringement can be amended by the person whose rights were infringed? So we’re all guilty for communicating? All the time? Am I infringing your rights to *not read my comment” by writing it and leaving it out there for you to find? Who else is guilty? The woman looking at me in the bus before? She was totally checking me out. Me for smiling back? And whoever could have said “hello” for saying “hello”?

Well, ok. If everyone’s guilty all the time then no one is ever, and we’ll have to look for a more useful definition of “infringement” if we want to keep this conversation meaningful at all.

[…] Absence of willful intent thus invalidates the charge (of murder, as per the case above).

Which agrees what I’m saying, but now is no longer what you were previously arguing —

when there’s there’s no conclusive objective evidence then of course, the subjective perspective of the defendant becomes relevant with respect to deciding if/what to charge him with.

— and what you were saying that you couldn’t see the difference with.

As for the remainder: that’s yet another blatant misrepresentation of my arguments.

Don’t get me wrong; I’ll continue to rebut such statements, if you like. It’s a somewhat enjoyable exercise. And in this case, it would be trivial, as I made no claim about what would, or would not, be infringing. That’s entirely your introduction, for the purposes of rebuttal, similar to how you selectively quoted SE, removing his statements from context, and on one occasion omitting pertinent parts of the statement itself, in order to create an impression that could then be rebutted. I merely stated that PUA has already been judged, which is something that can readily be established even by a survey of articles on the subject, including in the popular press.

Anyway, the point is this:

When two of the primary accusations leveled against PUA are those of deceptiveness and duplicity, do you really think that continuing to pursue such an approach is a good idea?

No, it’s really not. Did you read Clarisse’s book? The part about what she called “strategic ambiguity”?

Here’s Steven Pinker on language and the human nature.

I’ve seen the Pinker thing before, and it annoys me somewhat. I disagree quite vehemently with his conclusions and thesis (although some of the concepts introduced are useful), in part for the reasons that I attempted to elucidate. Specifically, I find the part about mutual knowledge to be very problematic, and that seems to be the concept you’re relying on. The assumption that knowledge is mutual leads to non-communication (and the belief that one has legitimately passed responsibility – that is, made an excuse) – which is what I said above.

I also very much disliked Clarisse’s term/concept “strategic ambiguity” and what it implies, as you might have gathered from my comments on at least one other thread. Put simply, I don’t accept those premises – or at least, I don’t accept them as proven. To me, they present as a “beg the question” fallacy.

To be honest, I can’t really see why your suggestion –

For instance, “I’m sorry for the insult, I shall make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

is more appropriate than explaining the gesture right away.

Because my suggestion centres the other person’s experience and immediately acknowledges it as valid. Attempting to explain away the gesture first, centres the initiator’s experience and sends a message of invalidating the other person’s emotions/response. By dealing with their experience first, and letting them process it fully before seeking to explain the misunderstanding, you acknowledge their personhood fully. Failing to do that simply compounds rather than mitigates the initial offence.

I mean, the initiator could be also reasonably insulted that his handshake was not appreciated but considered an insult.

Yes, but the initiator chose to take that risk, whereas the person being approached did not choose to take a risk but had it imposed on them.

I believe that an initiator should have responsibility for what they initiate, and that means the onus is on them to alert to the effects they are having and seek to avoid or mitigate the negative ones.

except that a person’s hidden true preferences are usually not as observable as the person’s looks

I would say that that statement strengthens the impact of my analogy, not weakens it.

@ #125

So, basically, everyone who’s saying “hello” to someone is logically infringing someone else’s assumed right to not be talked to, but that infringement can be amended by the person whose rights were infringed?

Since I’m a pretty strong introvert and often do not want people saying “hello” to me or trying to engage me in conversation, that suggestion has a certain validity for me – there are folks who think it’s somehow their right or even duty to try to “cheer you up”, and yes, that is an infringement.

To answer the more general point, though, you and Hugh seem to presenting communication as being essentially either “go” or “stop” with only a few discrete levels available. But it is more like a feedback system. If someone says “hello” to me when I do not want people talking to me, then I can send a pretty clear signal by simply ignoring them and not saying “hello” back – “hello” is not a huge infringement in itself, and ignoring a person is likewise not a huge infringement upon them. But the types of people who think they have a right or duty to “cheer you up” often misinterpret this signal as permission to continue talking, or to attempt more invasive tactics. Their script doesn’t allow for “wants to be left alone” as a valid position for a person to take. They are guilty and culpable, because they privilege their experience and worldview over mine (which is the problem I was explaining earlier with respect to apologising and explaining oneself only some time later). In general, this is the issue: that communication goes both ways and that the production of and adaptation to responses is where communication takes place.

Usually, there will be clear signals (sitting on my own, concentrating on reading or writing or thinking, closed body language, maybe wearing big headphones…) and most people, I think, are able to recognise “I want to be alone” body language and respect it. Some might want to test this understanding (with a “hello” or somesuch) so they say “hello” and see whether that hello is welcomed (e.g. change in body language, and “hello” back again) or rejected (no change, ignored, hand gesture to wake away, or “leave me alone”). They can then choose to respond appropriately (if welcomed, then escalate the conversation; if rejected then walk away – if rejected fiercely, then perhaps an apology as well) or to privilege their own assumptions over my reality (that is, attempt to escalate or continue the conversation anyway).

If I have a very nice garden, then maybe I put a tall fence or wall around it and lock the gate. Maybe I don’t put any barriers around it at all, and put a sign saying “All welcome to enjoy the garden!” Maybe I put up a sign saying “visiting hours 12:00 – 17:00 weekends only” or maybe I don’t put up any signs at all, but I regularly leave the little gate unlocked. The neighbours’ kids come over and want to play in my garden. One of them opens the gate and peers around with a ball tucked under his or her arm. I might yell at the kid, or I might beckon them in, or I might ask what they’re doing, or I might say please not to play in the garden, or I might just wait and see what they do, or I might make “shoo”ing gestures with my hands. The kid’s initial opening the gate and stepping far enough to peer around it, might be taken as an infringement, but I (as the owner of the garden) have the final arbitration of whether or not it is acceptable, and to what degree.

When a person initiates a contact of any sort, they are taking a chance about what the reception of their advance will be, and that’s their gamble. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask for reassurance or insurance that it won’t be received negatively. That’s why a low-level initial move is much better: the risks are much lower, and you can hope to double up on the next shot if the first one is a winner. In your bus travelling example, a look and a smile are a low-risk event for both the woman and for you; if you ignore it or glower back, then that’s a clear rejection and she can start checking out someone else, or go back to whatever else she might do on the bus. If you respond by smiling back, then that’s opening the possibility of another small raise (such as saying “hello”). But if you glower back, I don’t think it’s okay for her to retort “but I was only being friendly!” any more than for those annoying people who try to cheer me up to use that as their excuse.

Perhaps “infringement” isn’t quite the right word, but maybe “impingement” in the sense of making an impression, would be closer. The person on whom one impinges then is arbiter of whether that is an infringement or a welcome gesture.

– While I like the idea of having common scripts, that doesn’t mean that the scripts PUAs use are the best ones, or that they always represent what other people are doing. For example, plausible deniability is probably a lot more widely anticipated than “token resistance” LMR tactics. I am opposed to scripts that inhibit the opportunity of receivers to communicate non-consent, or that ignore such communication. The kind of scripts I like help people predict what the other person might do next.

– When a sexual miscommunication happens and an initiator pushes the boundaries of another person, that doesn’t necessarily just hurt the receptive partner. It can also harm the initiator through guilt and stigma. Not only do initiators have the responsibility to make an effort to protect their partners from the consequences of a mistake, so do receptive partners, when feasible.

– I am trying to figure out what should ethically be required of initiators (and receivers), not just what would be good for them to do. For example, I do think it’s a good thing if individual initiators work hard to ensure clear communication over consent. Yet it would take a lot of effort and specialized knowledge for initiators to understand and anticipate every kind of possible communication breakdown, or every sort of vulnerability that make receivers inhibited in communicating consent or non-consent. How much of this effort and specialized knowledge is required? Is it fair to require that initiators carry vastly greater knowledge and responsibility for sexual communication?

– I think there is a distinction between individual and societal ethical solutions. On an individual level, there is indeed a responsibility for both initiating and receptive partners to try to create safe, sane, and consensual situations, since both people benefit from such a situation, and it takes two people to create them. As an individual, the only thing you can easily change is yourself. But from a societal view, it is unfair to put all of the burden of communication and knowledge on initiators, given that initiators and receptive partners benefit equally from consensual situations.

– When I speak of scripts, shared assumptions, and their positive potential, I think many people in this thread are visualizing entirely different scenarios than me. When I talk about the usefulness about giving/accepting a coffee invitation, I do not mean that it communicates consent to sex. You can’t invite someone in for coffee, and then assume that you have consent to caveman them once you get in the door. Rather, the apartment invitation is used to communicate openness to the non-guaranteed possibility of mutual sexual escalation in the apartment that might eventually involve sex if things go well. And if that signal is not actually intended by the receiver, the initiator should figure it out pretty fast. Unless the initiator is a pushy asshole, minor discomfort would probably be the worst case scenario.

Scripts for when it’s acceptable to attempt to gain consent for sexual contact can be a good thing. Scripts for assuming consent are way more dangerous and have much higher requirements, which may include explicit verbal communication or long chains of mutual body language signals. Short skirt = consent, came up to my apartment = consent, those scripts are neither positive or widely shared.

Which agrees what I’m saying, but now is no longer what you were previously arguing –

why? How else would you determine the presence of willful intent?

As for the remainder: that’s yet another blatant misrepresentation of my arguments.

I do find it interesting that you’re claiming misrepresenation in an argument about the (relative) importance of the recipient’s perspective, particularly given that you previously argued for giving relative preference to the recipient… I’m not actually misrepresenting you in order to make that point, though, what I’m saying does summarize what I consider your point to be.

“I made no claim about what would, or would not, be infringing. That’s entirely your introduction …
I merely stated that PUA has already been judged, which is something that can readily be established even by a survey of articles on the subject, including in the popular press.”

Well, if you say so, but it’s not how I read what you said. You’ve questioned the morality of wanting to learn how to interact with women, questioned the possibility of doing so morally, irrespective of motive and approach used. You’ve also, repeatedly, stated that the recipients interpretation of an interaction be given preference over the initiatior’s interpretation, regardless of context.

When two of the primary accusations leveled against PUA are those of deceptiveness and duplicity, do you really think that continuing to pursue such an approach is a good idea?

Again, I don’t identify with the SC, but I identify with men who learned later than most in life how to interact with women, and I feel your arguments aren’t merely concerned with problematic practices within the SC, but that the claim deceptiveness and duplicity are part of *any* attempt to learn to how to interact with women. Although you also mentioned the need to learn in a reply to Hugh, so I’m a bit confused about your position in that respect.

I believe that giving men a sense of sexual self worth, allowing them to have choice in their interactions with women, will go much further than most other strategies in getting rid of the negative tactics employed today, some of which you mentioned above. Learning this better is necessary. To the extent that, today, the SC has become synonymous with “dating advice for men”, I thus certainly believe that the good aspects should not be indiscriminately painted with an overbroad brush.

I do find it interesting that you’re claiming misrepresenation in an argument about the (relative) importance of the recipient’s perspective, particularly given that you previously argued for giving relative preference to the recipient…

Again, misrepresentation. It wasn’t the point about the importance of the recipient’s perspective that I highlighted, but the point about infringement. You mentioned the perspective once to anchor it to a point that it had nothing to do with; everything else was hyperbolic extension of the infringement point, which was raised by you.

You’ve questioned the morality of wanting to learn how to interact with women […]

Again, misrepresentation. Not only did I not do that, I’ve been critiquing PUA, including defending it, and doing so here, for two or three years.

You know this well; you’ve been involved with the discussions over that time.

[…] questioned the possibility of doing so morally […]

Again, misrepresentation. I questioned the morality of specific tactics in specific circumstances, and defended others. Including three comments above.

[…] irrespective of motive and approach used.

Again, misrepresentation. In fact, in one of the threads here (one of the “gone wrong” ones), I spent the better part of a 150 comment exchange working out a theory that could distinguish such cases.

Also, three comments above, and elsewhere in this thread. Not to mention over those two to three years.

You’ve also, repeatedly, stated that the recipients interpretation of an interaction be given preference over the initiatior’s interpretation, regardless of context.

Again, misrepresentation. I’ve stated that it should be given preference specifically because of context. This is the only point on which you’re even remotely close — and that, because I spoke of context in general terms, not a catalog of various possible specifics.

If you’re not even going to pretend to represent things accurately, I’ll simply restate the point that I was making at the end of my last reply to you:

Critics of PUA don’t need to raise any criticisms when you argue like this. You’re providing them with all the evidence they need.

And Hugh’s earlier use of a handshake as a perceived threat (rather than insult): consider from the person receiving the handshake. This person sees a movement that might or might not be the beginning of an assault (say, a sharp finger-jab to the kidneys, or something). Is it reasonable to say, “wait and see if it’s an assault”? Or is it better to say, “take evasive action, and then figure out what threat is present”?

Nobody is arguing that people shouldn’t protect themselves from perceived threats. The question I’m asking is whether such a miscommunication is the fault of (a) the initiator, (b) the other person, (c) the culture, (d) nobody, or (e) none of the above.

As Infra points out, PUA tends to override signals or reinterpret them as a part of the same paradigm, so that the signals for “I use a different script from you” are reinterpreted as part of the same script, and thus effectively overridden or ignored.

That’s true, and it’s exactly why I’m not interested in defending all ideas PUAs have about scripts. I am just claiming that shared understanding is the foundation of communicating about consent, and scripts (dominant or otherwise) can be a starting point for developing shared understandings.

Because the initiator is making a choice to act, he or she is voluntarily taking responsibility.

Ah, but receptive partners often do make choices in sexual interaction. Going on a date with an initiator is a choice to act. Leaving a bar with an initiator is a choice to act. Touching an initiator on the arm is a choice to act. Accepting an invitation to someone’s apartment is a choice to act.

Yes, there are some situations where initiators do bear more responsibility, and the choice of the receptive partner is fettered. For example, if the initiator lies about the destination of the taxi, then the receptive partner did not choose that situation, and choosing to leave it is costly. On some kinds of cold approaches, the initiator might also take slightly more responsibility if the other person would have to incur some sort of cost (e.g. interrupting their errands) to leave the situation.

However, in contexts that were created by both people unfettered, the receptive partner does make a choice. Receptive partners are not necessarily lost little children.

This also means that he or she is voluntarily putting him or herself into a situation where there will be a need to be alert to new information and the potential for unexpected responses, and to be able to deal with those in a responsible and appropriate manner rather than simply following a script.

In a mutually created situation, receptive partners are also voluntarily putting themselves into a situation where there will be a need to be alert to new information and the potential for unexpected behavior, and to be able to deal with respectful advances in a responsible manner.

On that basis, it is incumbent on the initiator to be aware of the range of possible responses, and not on the receiver to be aware of what the initiator might intend.

It sounds like you are saying that initiators are responsible for predicting the responses of receivers, but receivers are not responsible for predicting the responses of initiators.

This distribution of responsibility and capability you describe is incredibly asymmetrical. Initiators are engaging in a high-precision, high-responsibility task, where they need to know a massive amount of information about the types of vulnerabilities people might have and types of miscommunications that occur, where the cost of mistakes to both people can be high, and they are expected to anticipate and compensate for when people cannot take care of themselves.

That relationship does not sound like an interaction between equals. It sounds more like the relationship between doctor and patient.

If we are going to expect initiators to do the work of a doctor and accept that level of liability, then we should give them textbooks to train them and pay them six-figure incomes to compensate them for the extra responsibility they shoulder.

People (including women, who are also people – radical notion though that may be in this world) generally like to be regarded as individuals, and approached accordingly. Relying on what other people like to decide what one person likes is like trying to guess what a person looks like based on looking at photos of other people.

I think there is a false dichotomy between relying on experience with other people, and recognizing the uniqueness of an individual person.

I think you vastly underestimate the usefulness of norms and background knowledge to facilitate sexual communication over consent. I realize that you object to specific norms and background assumptions, often with good reason. Nevertheless, I suspect that your ability to judge consent and figure out the unique qualities of your partner actually is partly based on background experience and scripts.

If you were truly figuring out someone’s preferences with no background knowledge, you wouldn’t even know which questions to ask. Or you would ask questions which would be interpreted as unattractive or even threatening. You might ask something like “do you like anal?” or “can I touch your left breast?” in the first conversation. Without background knowledge, you wouldn’t know any better.

In contrast, if you are aware of a script like an “escalation ladder” or “first-second-third base system,” then you would be aware that people usually kiss before asking for consent for penetration.

Certainly a script should not lead to assumptions of consent (apart from specific scripts of asking consent), and you should abandon a script if the other person does not appear to be playing by it. Nevertheless, a script can be a good starting point to figure out what someone might be expecting.

If that process is unreliable, and the initiator is unaware of that unreliability, then it isn’t communication, it’s an excuse.

Unfortunately, most communication is unreliable. In your view, what sorts of communication are sufficiently reliable to serve as a basis for communication over consent?

And that last bit, of course, is why you can still use obscure reference ethically and safely: it’s possible to check understanding by a layered interaction.

Layered interaction is the thing that I find missing in your argument. It’s the means by which a person can relatively easily assimilate new data and responses, and learn a new person, without causing a catastrophic breakdown (“landmines” notwithstanding).

I’m not missing layered interaction, I’m assuming it!

For instance, when defending something like active disinterest, or isolation under plausible deniability, I am only defending them in a context where the initiator checks for mutuality through a layered exchange of implicit and explicit signals before actually engaging in sexual contact. Of course active disinterest is problem if you try to caveman the other person as soon as their friends turn their back, with no mutual kino or IOIs! Of course inviting someone up to your apartment on a plausibly deniable pretext is a problem if you start getting into their physical space without some additional reasons to believe that they would want you there!

Testing whether your communication has been successfully interpreted is a great idea (PUAs do it all the time, by looking for IOIs, kino testing, compliance testing, or suggesting a change in venue). If you stack together a bunch of unreliable pieces of communication, the product is much more reliable.

Yet I will point out that unreliability still exists, and your ability to test whether your signals are correctly interpreted depends on your background knowledge and theory, which could be wrong.

Rather than force the observation to fit the theory, it allows testing new theories and adapting to the present reality (i.e. the needs/desires/expectations of the specific person in front of you). And that’s what I was talking about with the “kissing” situation.

Sounds a lot like what PUAs call “field-testing” and “kino testing.”

What you seem to be suggesting is that the only choice is between accepting the handshake, or making a retaliatory strike – the option of taking evasive action and then resetting seems not to be present for you.

I do recognize that it’s present, and I’m using that example to try to make an entirely different point: that if the uncomfortable scenario occurs and the handshake is evaded, the person who extended the hand should not be viewed as a bad person unless they could have reasonably anticipated that the handshake would be unwelcome.

Maybe there is a case for teaching non-retaliatory defensive postures for receivers of advances, but equally there has to be teaching of recognising a defensive posture and respecting it rather than seeing it as a “shit test” or ASD or similar.

I fully agree, and that’s exactly the sort of mutual communication that I am advocating.

Infra, while I don’t share all of Sam’s interpretation of your comments, I am also confused about some of your moral intuitions in this thread. That’s why I keep asking you and Snowdrop specific questions, or to outline specific scenarios. Of course, I have guesses about what your moral theories are, but I’d rather that you spell them out. It’s not uncommon for people to have different moral intuitions about complex subjects (like the balancing of different people’s interests) when their experiences are different.

Part of what might make things seem confusing is that it’s a dual issue. There’s the moral/ethical stance, which is informed by being both in the position that most people interested in these techniques are (het/het-inclusive, male-bodied) and subject to various axes of marginalization; this makes giving specific examples problematic, because it’s somewhat like requesting that I objectify myself into a scenario, then use that to shape advice that someone like me may then apply, and to someone to whom I bear similarities.

Engagement with this subject, inevitably, involves a form of self-reference, and on both sides of the equation.

Of course, different axes of marginalization involve… differences. Disability isn’t being female; low SES isn’t being POC; and so on. But such experiences alter one’s ethical and moral stance, especially as one becomes more aware of how the various axes of marginalization can intersect.

That, in particular, is what makes me hesitant about giving specific examples. Although that can help to illustrate the issues with an axis, it tends to compromise systemic flexibility, and one of the things that I consider to be a major element in how PUA has developed over the years, in terms of the direction that it’s taken in certain quarters, is precisely that: loss of systemic flexibility.

Which brings me to the second issue.

I’m not convinced that internal critique can be all that successful at this point, when it comes to the community. More what needs to be done, if something can be done, is to present the ideas so that they can be rebuilt from the outside, and that means presenting them in the proper context. Which is why I’m as critical of presentation as I am.

“All that will be, entrusted now to you / Stop the past’s mistakes from once again coming true.”

As I’ve written in other threads here: I do think that there are things of value in the SC. Not necessarily in the popular material; not necessarily in the well-known material; not necessarily when it’s studied in isolation. But there are things that can be valuable — if they are worked out, analyzed, and developed in the right way.

If there’s anything that the history of the community shows, it’s that there are a number of ways in which that can go wrong.

This, if only in my way, is my attempt to prevent that past from happening again.

An aside, related to what you mentioned about IOIs, etc. in reply to SnowdropExplodes:

What’s your take on the “Don’t Look/Wait for IOI’s- Just Touch the Girl. Foreplay from the Start!!!” thread at PUA-Zone/Sedfast? (Not linking directly for now; if Clarisse would like to edit to add the link, no objections.)

5 stars, almost 2K views, in their “Hall of Fame” forum. Some critical comments, such as MF’s, more that aren’t, with about 1.2K registered forum members.

More the issue of its promotion to a Hall of Fame post and its rating than just the content, and how that relates to your contentions about being able to rely on people checking for IOIs and other indicators; it’s noticing this kind of shift that has contributed to my position as well.

—

(And, should have double-checked. Reference should be clear enough, but that “three comments above” was supposed to refer to #124. I.e., third comment counting backward. Apologies for the accidental insight into TBI workarounds.)

Not only did I not do that, I’ve been critiquing PUA, including defending it, and doing so here, for two or three years.

You know this well; you’ve been involved with the discussions over that time.

Good, then. If that’s *not* what you tried to say, then fine. Although I have to say that I have been previously confused and not certain what exactly your positions are, as they seemed to shift. I also remember one thread, in which you accused me of lack of empathy, and I seriously didn’t understand what you were trying to say. And maybe there is a language issue on top of everything else.

If you’re not even going to pretend to represent things accurately

You should also consider the possibility you’re not arguing as clearly as you appear to believe you do.

Because my suggestion centres the other person’s experience and immediately acknowledges it as valid. Attempting to explain away the gesture first, centres the initiator’s experience and sends a message of invalidating the other person’s emotions/response.

I think it’s important to differentiate between individual and cultural validity in this respect. To primarily focus on the recipients perspective disregards the cultural context. I’d say the appropriate response sequence would depend on the recipients perceivavle level of affectedness. If someone appears to be visible shaken, then dealing with that first seems to be the appropriate way, otherwise I’d say explaining the context first seems right.

I believe that an initiator should have responsibility for what they initiate, and that means the onus is on them to alert to the effects they are having and seek to avoid or mitigate the negative ones.

…

When a person initiates a contact of any sort, they are taking a chance about what the reception of their advance will be, and that’s their gamble. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask for reassurance or insurance that it won’t be received negatively.

Of course there’s no insurance it’s not being taken negatively, and there cannot (logically) and there should not. But this is different from saying someone who is taking that risk of creating an interaction (often out of thin air) is morally wrong for attempting to doing so.

To answer the more general point, though, you and Hugh seem to presenting communication as being essentially either “go” or “stop” with only a few discrete levels available. But it is more like a feedback system.

I fully agree with your characterization of communication as a feedback system. I just don’t see how you can square that (as well as your description of how you initiate kissing, for example) with your characterization of the responsibilities of initiaton, which do sound like what Hugh writes above about asymmetry.

You should also consider the possibility you’re not arguing as clearly as you appear to believe you do.

I’m a temporal lobe epileptic; I’m quite aware that my language patterns aren’t quite the norm. Similarly, I’m not exactly unfamiliar with circumstances when a language is primary for one person, but not for someone else.

But this point goes to the central issue, really. There’s a point at which the miscommunication argument stops being reasonable, and at which it stops being reasonable asking people to accept it.

Anyway, it’s a dead horse, a deceased equine, and a pony that’s trotted off into the beyond; there’s no sense left in beating it.

I also remember one thread, in which you accused me of lack of empathy […]

For context, this is the comment that Sam keeps referring to with the “lack of empathy” reference:

@Sam:

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here? That rejecting a woman who says “fuck me” is synonymous to being an asshole?

See… this kind of thing is why the Sheldon analogy came up, I think. It was a direct illustration of the quote, from AB, directly above it, as I’ve observed that kind of thing play out IRL. The fact that you’re connecting it with tangents, instead (which weren’t even mentioned in the comment, much less in context), and not making that connection, even though the two were placed side by side, and considering the subject?

Granted, I could have made that explicit. But still… it suggests that there’s an empathy disconnect.

If people read that in context and think it’s unjustified, no objections; I have not raised the issue since.

Again, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here. It seems like you’re saying that I’m pretending to misunderstand you for some reason?

No. It’s more similar to the above.

In that comment, I wasn’t accusing you of lacking empathy; I was attempting to explain why people might see you in a certain way.

Similarly, here, I’m not accusing you of pretending to understand; I’m attempting to explain that, after a certain point, asking people to accept the idea that things are just miscommunication pushes the boundaries of credence.

Similarly, here, I’m not accusing you of pretending to understand; I’m attempting to explain that, after a certain point, asking people to accept the idea that things are just miscommunication pushes the boundaries of credence.

Yes, the parrot is dead. So “people” could reasonably suggest that I’m pretending to misunderstand you (for some reason), but *you* don’t actually suggest that? Granted, the idea is a bit silly in the first place, but your suggestion that “people” could reasonably make such an accusation after a point (which, by implication, must have been reached, or your general statement would really only work as a segway to the Flying Circus link) while *you don’t* really leaves me wondering…

The point in my intentionally making that understanding = misunderstanding “mistake,” and then highlighting it with a follow-up comment, was to provide an example in which miscommunication would be justifiably asserted, and where you could have justifiably claimed offense, and where both of those claims could have been seen as valid.

As parapraxis: “You actually do think that I lack empathy: that’s why you wrote ‘understand’ instead of ‘misunderstand.'”

As typo: “I got caught in keeping things parallel: I started with ‘I’m not accusing you of lacking empathy..,’ so I ended up botching this as ‘I’m not accusing you of pretending to understand.'”

People might credit those interpretations differently, but both could be argued, both have some measure of support, and it’s a kind of case in which (as Hugh has been arguing for) the “receptive partner,” in whose position I’ve essentially been in, in these exchanges, has substantial culpability.

And that, notwithstanding mitigating factors that do apply (e.g., getting caught up in parallel form is something that can occur with neurological conditions such as mine, along with related things such as hypergraphia, circumstantiality, and compulsive loquaciousness).

The reference to the parrot sketch was similar: it paralleled the earlier “beat a dead horse” reference, which was both an idiom and intended as an obscure reference to that sketch in the first place. Again, this argues for a the existence of a valid circumstance for miscommunication: getting it in the way intended requires substantial familiarity not only with the language and with the culture, but also with media from a particular period of time. (One could also argue that it requires in-group familiarity, as well.)

When factors such as these don’t exist, it becomes more difficult to accept that miscommunication is actually the cause of the problem. Things start to look comic, then nonsensical, then trying, and finally as if they bear little relation to the situation at all.

This doesn’t mean that at any point an accusation necessarily gets raised that someone is intentionally misunderstanding things; nor does it necessarily entail one. But it does mean that, as things proceed on, they become more and more difficult to believe.

Saying “I doubt you” is not the same as saying “You’re lying.”

After a certain point, one simply no longer believes, and they just move along.

The point in my intentionally making that understanding = misunderstanding “mistake,” and then highlighting it with a follow-up comment,

Well, you know, one could also see it as an unintentional demonstration of a rethorical style that is not dissimilar to some of the techniques you considered problematic above – like, say, active disinterest.

the “receptive partner,” in whose position I’ve essentially been in, in these exchanges

I don’t think culpability is an appropriate category here, but I’m surprised you consider yourself the “receptive party” in these exchanges. If anything, I’d considered myself “receptive”, particarly in *this* exchange, given how I interpreted your statements as attacks. But those perceptions appear to now mostly serve to demonstrate that the concept of clearly defined initiating and receptive party in any exchange ceases to make sense after a certain point, which, I’d say, is usually reached rather quickly.

Saying “I doubt you” is not the same as saying “You’re lying.”

No, but to reply “I doubt that(you)” to “I don’t understand” really doesn’t make much sense without an assumption about the reason of or the motive for the other person’s claim to not understand.

Be that as it may, the parrot really is dead, let’s stop beating its head on the counter.

Well, you know, one could also see it as an unintentional demonstration of a rethorical style that is not dissimilar to some of the techniques you considered problematic above – like, say, active disinterest.

Not unintentional; intentional. Quoting myself, on the exception:

The only way that argument could be supported is if the PUA intended for the technique to fail.

One of the aims in doing so was to provide a test case for evaluating that principle.

And as far as the “receptive partner” point: the major theme in my comments, in these exchanges, has been raising them in my own defense — also, incidentally, the only reason why I’m replying to these two points for this comment — whereas that in yours has been about my statements and the motivations that they might imply. That does go some distance in establishing the “receptive” and “initiating” roles, respectively.

Those points made: I think that this particular game of chess is ended.

Engagement with this subject, inevitably, involves a form of self-reference, and on both sides of the equation.

I also feel self-referential here. In this discussion, I’ve been attempting to find a division of moral responsibility and ethical labor that I would accept from both the initiator and receiver position, which is where my conclusion of shared responsibility comes from. I wouldn’t ask someone initiating with me to accept a vastly higher ethical responsibility for safety, communication, and study, because such an expectation seems incompatible with anyone being willing to initiate at all.

My interest in scripts, shared understandings, and background experiences is partially because I believe that those things can be used in ways that would keep me safer and more comfortable as a receptive partner by making it easier for people to predict what the other is doing and feeling. While throwing those things away might make people less likely to make some mistakes about my consent, it might make them more likely to make other mistakes about my consent. For instance, a bunch of the times that someone has violated my boundaries, I feel that they “jumped ahead” on the escalation ladder, in a way that would have been problematic even if they had asked my consent.

I realize that other people have different experiences, and have been subjected to boundary violations that they might associate with particular cultural scripts or background assumptions. Chances are, I would not value those particular scripts and background assumptions, because I believe that the problems with them should be accessible through empathy, or through other scripts or background assumptions. The more often a script contributes to harmful behavior, the less positive potential I would see in it for creating a shared understanding.

It’s impossible to step entirely outside of scripts or cultural background knowledge. “No means no” and “yes means yes” are both scripts, as I conceptualize them. Even if you co-develop a new script and set of understandings with each person you date, being able to develop such a script in a safe way would require some other script and shared understandings about the appropriate way to co-develop a new script.

I’m not convinced that internal critique can be all that successful at this point, when it comes to the community. More what needs to be done, if something can be done, is to present the ideas so that they can be rebuilt from the outside, and that means presenting them in the proper context. Which is why I’m as critical of presentation as I am.

I’m also interested in rebuilding pickup from the outside. That’s why I’m here, not a pickup forum.

I think to evaluate PUA techniques, we must look at the worst case scenario, a typical scenario, and also a scenario where the technique is used by a non-PUA who does everything else ethically.

For example, to evaluate the potential of active disinterest, negs, isolation, or assumptions about “token resistance,” I would ask whether they could be ethically used by someone who respects and confirms consent throughout the rest of the interaction. My current answers for those tactics would be “yes, maybe, depends, and no.”

What’s your take on the “Don’t Look/Wait for IOI’s- Just Touch the Girl. Foreplay from the Start!!!” thread at PUA-Zone/Sedfast? (Not linking directly for now; if Clarisse would like to edit to add the link, no objections.)

Short answer: This advice could be harmful for people who don’t like receiving unasked touch. Also, I do not agree that letting someone touch you indicates that you are DTF (“down to fuck”), and I am skeptical of the concept of DTF. Some people have trouble protesting unasked touch, and might freeze up.

Casual touch is very common in many parts of the world, and there is not a consensus on how much, if any, is acceptable without explicit permission. I do sympathize with PUAs trying to find a quick way to assess whether someone is open to the possibility of sex.

Unfortunately, they picked a method that’s unreliable. Perhaps they don’t know any better, probably because they don’t know any survivors or other people who object to unasked touch, or they are generalizing from their own comfort levels with touch and what it means about their consent. Or they are assholes who are just going for convenience.

More the issue of its promotion to a Hall of Fame post and its rating than just the content, and how that relates to your contentions about being able to rely on people checking for IOIs and other indicators; it’s noticing this kind of shift that has contributed to my position as well.

This post does frame observance of IOIs as the default practice among PUAs, which could be a good thing. It might indicate that attitudes are changing, along with enough other data points. Given the problems of moral self-criticism within pickup, we might expect that toxic views be tolerated and eventually flourish, similar as within feminism and men’s rights. Of course, getting a representative sample of people with pickup background would be hard.

In this discussion, I’ve been attempting to find a division of moral responsibility and ethical labor that I would accept from both the initiator and receiver position, which is where my conclusion of shared responsibility comes from.

I get the part about moral responsibility and ethical labor; but perhaps the issues are a bit more nuanced.

What might help to explain things is the doctor-patient metaphor that you mentioned earlier on. Someone who goes in for routine medical treatment has one understanding of that; someone with emergency treatment, another; someone with disabling impairments, another. And these are modified by choice of treatment provider, and ability to choose; providers and facilities available; and consequences that may result from refusing, or even challenging, treatment. (For example: I know individuals who were threatened with being turned in to child protective services for taking their kid from one hospital to another, due to delay in treatment, even though it was later conceded that the minutes saved in doing so saved the child’s life. In a patient’s position, going against doctors often comes with penalties, even if the choice is correct.)

Similarly, an uninsured patient is not in the same position as an insured one; a low SES one, compared to one who is high; or a waitress who is in the position of patient, compared to a radiologist or doctor who is one.

These parallel the kind of factors that I was getting at above, such as capability, recognition, acknowledgment and respect, and safety.

For these kinds of reasons, I differ on this point:

I wouldn’t ask someone initiating with me to accept a vastly higher ethical responsibility for safety, communication, and study, because such an expectation seems incompatible with anyone being willing to initiate at all.

I wouldn’t argue for a vastly higher ethical responsibility. But what cannot be assumed is balance; there are too many ways for things to become otherwise, and this asymmetry tends to fall, dominantly, on the receptive side, not on the initiating one. Loosely phrased, initiation tends to act within chosen constraints; one could even say that this is its defining quality. But with receptiveness, the constraints are more or less inherent, and the contours of its agency tend to be defined preemptively.

(“Inherent” here meaning, roughly, “imposed by structural forces.”)

Though I can’t recall the source at the moment: I believe that I’ve seen this defined elsewhere as the difference between freedom, and making the most of what freedom one has.

In a sense, this is the problem with integrating scripts into PUA frameworks: they embody what are, for particular groups, inherent constraints, as techniques, which end up getting retroactively grounded through theory. This does little more than reinforce the existing situation, formalizing it as a praxis.

This isn’t to argue that scripts shouldn’t be considered, analyzed, and critiqued. Much to the contrary; it’s vital that this be done. The question is more of whether or not — and if it should, how — this should be combined with other PUA techniques.

These parallel the kind of factors that I was getting at above, such as capability, recognition, acknowledgment and respect, and safety.

I think we both agree that people have different capabilities, which deserve recognition, acknowledgment, and respect. I would add one more important value: privacy (for instance, the initiator’s privacy about their intentions, or the receiver’s privacy about their vulnerabilities, traumas, or disabilities). So how should different capabilities and vulnerabilities be addressed?

What should the default assumptions be about people’s capabilities and vulnerabilities? That everyone should be treated as a vulnerable, disabled, sexual assault survivor until proven otherwise? Or that people can be treated according to the norms of the situation, unless they opt-out of them (by giving implicit or explicit directions like “I like to take things slow,” by showing their non-normativity, or revealing specific vulnerabilities and needs that they have), which the initiator should recognize and respect? Some other solution?

I wouldn’t argue for a vastly higher ethical responsibility. But what cannot be assumed is balance; there are too many ways for things to become otherwise, and this asymmetry tends to fall, dominantly, on the receptive side, not on the initiating one.

I agree with you that ethical responsibility isn’t evenly distributed in every situation. For example, in cases where the situation is primarily set up by the initiator, they hold more responsibility. In cases where it would be predictably costly for the receiver to leave or say “no,” more responsibility would fall on the initiator. They have a comparative advantage at averting a problem.

In other situations, it seems like the receiver has a comparative advantage in averting miscommunication. For example, I have a couple minor psychological vulnerabilities that are sufficiently obscure it would be very hard for the other person to figure out, and I enter sexual situations knowing this.

Loosely phrased, initiation tends to act within chosen constraints; one could even say that this is its defining quality. But with receptiveness, the constraints are more or less inherent, and the contours of its agency tend to be defined preemptively.

Could you say more about what you mean here? Here’s my guess: initiators choose how they initiate, and they have a comparative advantage in predicting what they will do. By initiating, the initiator creates a situation where the receiver must respond on the spot in a limited range of ways. If reducing surprise is a moral goal (which I’m not at all convinced of) then initiators would have more responsibility. If the initiator limits how the receiver can respond through the way they initiate, then more of the moral responsibility is on them.

If you look at an isolated case of an initiator making one advance, then the structure does indeed seem to place significantly more responsibility on the initiator. But that asymmetrical structure doesn’t come out of nowhere. As you observe, the structure is not inherent. Many receptive partners contribute to risks of miscommunication through the error-prone expectations they hold of initiators, though of course not everyone who receives an advance does so.

If I co-create or participate in a mutual potentially-sexual situation (like a date), then I am aware of the risk that I might be put on the spot. If the initiator isn’t an asshole, then the way they initiate cannot be disentangled from information I give them and the voluntary actions and responses I take. The better I can predict what they will do (through their efforts or mine), the more the capability to avert miscommunication shifts back to me, because I’m the one who best knows about the impact on me of their plans.

If a multi-signal communication breakdown occurs that suggests a cultural problem larger than the two of us which neither of us can be held responsible for.

It’s quite possible that initiators hold slightly more responsibility even in mutual interactions, but the larger the asymmetry, the less plausible it would be that the initiator consented to such a division of responsibility.

I would add one more important value: privacy (for instance, the initiator’s privacy about their intentions, or the receiver’s privacy about their vulnerabilities, traumas, or disabilities).

Agreed. Though I would add that, again, we have a similar asymmetry here. To reference once more what AB wrote: there’s a difference between not saying what one should be mentioned, and remaining silent on what isn’t necessary to mention, or what may carry significant costs for mentioning. An initiator’s intentions are likely to fall into the first category; the group composed of one’s traumas, vulnerabilities, and impairments may fall into the first, but also has good cause for falling into the second, especially when considering the condition of “significant costs.”

What should the default assumptions be about people’s capabilities and vulnerabilities? That everyone should be treated as a vulnerable, disabled, sexual assault survivor until proven otherwise?

(my emphasis)

I highlighted “disabled” because I think that it helps to answer this question: there’s a difference between an impairment (such as a brain lesion) and a disability (such as how the effects of that lesion affect one’s ability to interact with the socioeconomic context). To start from the assumption that people should be treated as if they might be disabled is not the same as starting from the assumption that they might not be normatively able-bodied.

As we’re likely both aware, in fact, some arguments for the practice of pickup work on this basis: rejecting the idea that men are necessarily neurotypical, and arguing that the information is necessary because some men aren’t. (Which, I’ll note, using the same test as most, applies to me as well.)

That’s why I’m not entirely comfortable with this line of argument, and I’ve seen similar objections raised (IIRC) in past threads here:

PUA is seemingly designed to help people who don’t fit in, aren’t normative, and don’t know how to comply with the norms that surround them. But it does this without taking into account, in any substantial way, the needs and vulnerabilities of those who don’t fit in, aren’t normative, and don’t know how to comply with the norms that surround them. And it advances little argument in order to justify this imbalance.

But this goes back to the point I raised at the end of my previous comment: should scripts be worked into PUA techniques at all? As I asserted earlier on, in many cases, script and technique are separable. Zan’s later work, such as the Monte Carlo Sessions, is an example of this; it applies to much of DiCarlo’s work as well. Much other work is about how conversation works, and about group interactions, and about how social dynamics tend to organize themselves. Some, such as Mike Patrick’s, has a substantial focus on recognizing women’s agency (e.g., “triangulation”) and rejecting elements of the default script. Overall, the “default script” is not a core element — it’s supplemental, forming a theoretical backbone.

It may be necessary for cultural awareness; but how necessary is it for PUA, and how closely do those things need to be tied together?

But in the end, this is really just a way of asking a different question: who is PUA intended to serve? Because I think that there are two possible answers to that, and two possible forms that it can take as a result: that it serves those who are aiming to assimilate, or that it serves those who are aiming to maintain their existing identity while learning to navigate a social context that pushes them to abandon it.

In a sense, this is similar to the “queer vs. assimilationist” debate, and that of the “umbrella,” and is one of the reasons why I brought those issues up.

In other situations, it seems like the receiver has a comparative advantage in averting miscommunication.

I’d agree that in other situations, the receptive/proceptive individual has a comparative advantage in being aware of what can go wrong. But this is not equivalent to a comparative advantage in averting miscommunication. This goes to the point in the previous comment about asymmetry, and about the effects of chosen versus imposed/inherent constraints.

And on that subject:

By initiating, the initiator creates a situation where the receiver must respond on the spot in a limited range of ways.

The initiator creates a situation that interacts with the already-existing constraints that are put in place by structural elements, such as the norms that you’re talking about, but also including those that apply to body assumptions (e.g., ableism), class, and race. By way of analogy, one could say that both the initiating and receptive/proceptive individuals experience pressure; but the first is pneumatic, while the second is hydraulic.

The first has the leeway of compression, which is not available to the second; asymmetry is thus a highly likely, albeit not inevitable, outcome.

And this, in turn, leads to this:

If a multi-signal communication breakdown occurs that suggests a cultural problem larger than the two of us which neither of us can be held responsible for.

there’s a new post on feministe that deals with creepiness again with a couple of links to apparently recently active discussions about the subject, which seems, at least partly, related to this subject.

Btw, it seems to me, that’s also something to be taken into account when wondering about “balance” of responsibilties in an interaction: here’s a video of a female reporter who’s wondering why she hasn’t found her dream guy and explores new ways to find him in a 30mins docutainment show called “blong, single, experimenting” that ran on a “younger” channel of German public tv last year. So the video is in German, but if you tune in at 7 minutes, you’ll understand without needing to understand the words.

She’s sitting in a coffee place with a dating coach who asks her to just walk up to the counter and say hello to a guy sitting there pretending to order a coffee for the coach. She’s there with a camera team, and she’s still hardly able to do say hello. Two minutes later, and after the coach walked up to the bar and asked for the sugar from the guy sitting there, she’s still shaking from the fear of having to walk up to the guy.

I thought it was interesting how the coach did NLP visualizations and modality shifts of the type that are critiqued in PUA, having her imagine her self-confidence as a “streaming ball of light”, giving it a color, visualizing its location in her body and then after anchoring, increasing the strength of the streaming in order to increase the intensity of the feeling. When Ross Jeffries does that, it’s rape(y) in the eyes of some, because the feeling he’s intensifying is sexual arousal and the anchoring/link is to his voice.

I also liked the description of the men in the cooking course as “nice”, and the complaint that none of them were “comfy”, i.e. attractive. The reply was “If a man is ‘comfy’, he doesn’t come here.” (i.e. to the singles’ cooking class).

A valuable reminder of the diversity of human experience to men who think that a woman’s looks and female body are her only needed opener and closer, though.

Eurosabra: I’ve listened to that sentence two or three times, and I don’t think she’s saying “comfy” (which is not really a german word). I’m hearing “krampfy”, which is not really a word either but a neologistic mix of German lexeme with English morphology, but the meaning seems clear: tense, inhibited. She’s saying that none of them are tense or unrelaxed in the presence of women, and the reply is that those who are don’t come to a single’s cooking class.

To start from the assumption that people should be treated as if they might be disabled is not the same as starting from the assumption that they might not be normatively able-bodied.

Agreed. So what capabilities can be assumed? Of course, a conscientious initiator should be on the look out for evidence that someone might lack certain capabilities (e.g. the capability to say “no”, or the capabilities to recognize the initiator’s intentions). But that evidence takes time to collect (especially in a why that respects the other person’s privacy), so you need to start with some default assumptions.

So should initiators assume that receptive partners lack all relevant capabilities until proven otherwise? Assume that if you talk to someone, they might lack the capability to leave or end the conversation, they won’t be able to recognize or reject sexual intent you show, they won’t be able to deny your request for their number, they won’t be able to deny your request to meet up, and they won’t have the capacity to refuse your request for a kiss and will go along with it unenthusiastically?

If not, then what capabilities can an initiator assume at the start of the interaction and not be considered a bad person if they are wrong? Can the social context lead to any valid assumptions about people’s capabilities (e.g. if they are hanging out in a nightclub, does that give you any valid evidence about their social capabilities)?

From one angle, I’m very supportive of recognizing people’s different capabilities and preferences in sexuality; that’s a big part of why I got interested in the concept of “calibration” from pickup. From another angle, I’m trying to see if there’s any way to get away from the argument that initiators gotta initiate with imperfect information, and then accept most of the risk of blame if something goes wrong.

PUA is seemingly designed to help people who don’t fit in, aren’t normative, and don’t know how to comply with the norms that surround them. But it does this without taking into account, in any substantial way, the needs and vulnerabilities of those who don’t fit in, aren’t normative, and don’t know how to comply with the norms that surround them. And it advances little argument in order to justify this imbalance.

The way I look at it, there isn’t very much of an imbalance. Pickup, like the general culture, marginalizes non-normative people. It marginalizes the preferences of non-normative women (and non-normative men!) by failing to account for them. It marginalizes the safety needs and different capabilities of some women, but it mostly does the same thing for some men.

Pickup isn’t very helpful for men to respect their boundaries, either, which is a subject that for some reason nobody seems to talk about expect for me. It’s assumed that male PUAs should welcome female touch (including groping) as an IOI without expecting her to ask for permission. Pickup assumes that you want to “pull”, and doesn’t make room for men who might want a slower process, such as some male survivors. LMR is framed as something that women do.

Pickup does help some types of non-normative men socially (and it can be useful for some types of non-normative women to understand social interaction). For other types of non-normative men (e.g. some people with anxiety disorders) pickup might actually be harmful, because it tries to push them into approaching way too fast.

In general, pickup in general isn’t helpful to non-normative people expect those with the specific types of social skills or dating challenges that can be helped by pickup.

Of course, I’m talking about pickup in general here. If a discerning person cherry-picks ideas out of pickup, then there is indeed helpful stuff for non-normative people. For instance, the concept of “calibration” for figuring how to read a new person.

I’d agree that in other situations, the receptive/proceptive individual has a comparative advantage in being aware of what can go wrong. But this is not equivalent to a comparative advantage in averting miscommunication.

That’s correct. Sometimes, the receptive partner knows better what might go wrong, but they don’t have the capability to avert it (or the situation makes it difficult, perhaps even because the initiator was making it difficult for the receptive partner to speak up).

Of course, sometimes the receptive partner is in a better position to both recognize the potential for miscommunication, and to stop it.

But again, this goes to the question: who is PUA intended to serve?

Pickup seems intended to serve men who have some specific sorts of social challenges and who lack knowledge of mainstream dating norms and gender norms.

So what about everyone else? Well, the answer to that question probably depends on the PUA, and which theory they are working from. Some PUAs do conceptualize their practice as serving the women they go out with. Others don’t give a crap.

Men who don’t conform to how PUAs are supposed to behave are considered Average Frustrated Chumps (AFCs), Keyboard Jockeys (KJs), or sometimes gay.

In general, pickup fails to recognize the potential harms from normative scripts, which is pretty typical of the wider culture. For example, a large amount of the population isn’t very well educated about sexual assault, disabilities, different capabilities, and neurodiversity.

Lots of people, including heterosexual women think stuff like “if someone doesn’t like this, then they can just say ‘no'” and “if they don’t like me touching them, then they can just move away, no harm done.” So the pickup thread you mention which uses touch as a test really isn’t outside norms at all.

In a world where everyone fit the norm, pickup would actually serve people pretty well. Many PUAs believe that we live in this world. Most non-PUAs probably do, too (but never get held to moral scrutiny because they don’t write their sexual practices on internet forums).

To the extent that PUAs mirror the wider culture, I view them as misguided and ignorant, rather than evil. For instance, the “touch her, and she will move away if she isn’t interested” is misguided and ignorant, but it’s a common misconception that he might need specific education to see through. In contrast, an example like in the original post which talks about “forcing” women to do things is farther outside the norms. That behavior seems knowingly dangerous rather than merely misguided by the cultural Matrix.

So should initiators assume that receptive partners lack all relevant capabilities until proven otherwise? […] If not, then what capabilities can an initiator assume at the start of the interaction and not be considered a bad person if they are wrong?

I think that framing it this way leads to another false dichotomy. What we’re really dealing with here is a different distinction: those who study PUA and those who don’t, and what additional responsibilities might come along with being in the former group. A case in point, and one that I leveraged in one of the other threads, would be the concept of state breaks. The argument can certainly be raised that if one is familiar with this, one has an increased ability to recognize when one is occurring — including an attendant increased ability to recognize signs of indecision, confusion and/or distress — and thus a higher ethical burden to carry and a higher standard to meet. Thus an initiator who is also a PUA is not the same as an initiator who is not, due to the fact that they have intentionally become a PUA; and thus this issue cannot just be framed in terms of what can be expected of initiating individuals simpliciter.

Similarly with IOIs, IODs, conversational structures, social dynamics, et al. If one searches after a greater understanding of the factors involved in these situations, and aims to integrate that understanding into one’s practice, but then works to establish baseline levels of responsibility that do not take these factors into account, one readily — and, I would argue, with substantial justification on the part of those mounting them — opens oneself to arguments of ethical default.

In other words, addressing the issues as presented conflates two different issues: those involved with initiating and receptive/proceptive roles under specific conditions, and PUA, which alters both those conditions and a given individual’s understanding of them. That does achieve the goal of “[getting] away from the argument that initiators gotta initiate with imperfect information, and then accept most of the risk of blame if something goes wrong;” but it does so by avoiding direct address of the notion that PUA itself is capable of addressing the “imperfect information” problem — which would render moot, essentially, the need for such a move.

But again, the issue of default assumptions is much like the issue of the default script: I see no compelling reason why such default assumptions, other than those that can be gathered from context (and perhaps from some preliminary research related to it) are necessary. They form a theoretical backbone, but no more; they are no more necessary than assuming “shared Anglo-Saxon heritage” is, to reference a recent, if currently disputed, political gaffe.

And to a point, that’s kind of the point: what’s being argued for as cultural awareness, here, is actually a specific approach to cultural awareness, and one that doesn’t need to be emphasized.

The way I look at it, there isn’t very much of an imbalance. Pickup, like the general culture, marginalizes non-normative people. It marginalizes the preferences of non-normative women (and non-normative men!) by failing to account for them. It marginalizes the safety needs and different capabilities of some women, but it mostly does the same thing for some men.

And this is precisely what I was getting at earlier with “formalizing it as a praxis.”

Not that I’m saying that this is an unusual process; consider, for example, in the context of critical race theory, Hartigan’s Odd Tribes. But again, that’s kind of the point, and it goes to the one about the separability of technique from default narrative, and the question of whom things serve.

Pickup isn’t very helpful for men to respect their boundaries, either, which is a subject that for some reason nobody seems to talk about expect for me.

With due respect: the community is large, as we’ve both noted. And those discussions don’t always take place publicly. It might be worth considering that you’re not the only one who’s raised the issue, either now, or as the years have gone by. Just as an aside.

Of course, sometimes the receptive partner is in a better position to both recognize the potential for miscommunication, and to stop it.

And I don’t recall anyone arguing that such situations are absent; even in the BDSM articles here, this has been admitted, and readily so. This does not, however, shift the focus away from acknowledging that the limitations, in such cases, are often of more importance in one’s deliberations than the agency that one can exert against them.

This is not equivalent to defining receptive/proceptive individuals as victims or children, or defining them as disempowered by default; it is to prevent the construction of an illusion of agency where it is unwarranted, which can then be used for unjustified, context-omitting interpretations.

Pickup seems intended to serve men who have some specific sorts of social challenges and who lack knowledge of mainstream dating norms and gender norms.

Which, unfortunately, begs the question. Yes, it’s about these people; but with the aim of helping them to assimilate, or with the aim of helping them to maintain their identity when faced with a system that pressures them to abandon it?

And as far as “everyone else:” that, I think, goes to the points, in this comment, raised earlier on.

And… I wasn’t going to pursue this point. But my head keeps coming back to it, and it’s worth pursuing, so:

Lots of people, including heterosexual women think stuff like “if someone doesn’t like this, then they can just say ‘no’” and “if they don’t like me touching them, then they can just move away, no harm done.” So the pickup thread you mention which uses touch as a test really isn’t outside norms at all.

Both of those points are true. But it’s also true that that isn’t what the thread was saying. When someone writes, as that author did in #10 (that thread), that “the simple fact that she’s standing there and didn’t run off is an IOI” — you’re moving substantially away from a norm. Maybe it isn’t into the territory of the OP, but it isn’t in the realm of the statements you’re using here.

When he writes, as he did in the post:

“So, rather than waiting for ‘signs,’ make them happen. Force the girl get IN or OUT. […] BE AGGRESSIVE- There is no losing a girl that you haven’t fucked. You can’t lose something that you didn’t have in the first place.”

That’s moving into Reyes territory. Again. And the fact that his stuff got seen as just an extension of norms was why that guy was tolerated to begin with.

[…] “Pick someone drunk and inexperienced, and isolate her from her friends? I’m amazed how blatant this dude is about being an asshole. People, this is one reason we keep an eye on our drunk friends at nightclubs. While it’s not your fault if your friend gets in trouble, sometimes there’s a chance that you couldprovide support at a crucial time.” Rapey Pickup Artists: Analysis of a Field Report […]

A case in point, and one that I leveraged in one of the other threads, would be the concept of state breaks. The argument can certainly be raised that if one is familiar with this, one has an increased ability to recognize when one is occurring — including an attendant increased ability to recognize signs of indecision, confusion and/or distress — and thus a higher ethical burden to carry and a higher standard to meet.

It’s true that some PUAs might be better than non-PUAs at spotting certain indicators of confusion, distress, or disinterest. If so, then there may be an additional responsibility on PUAs to pause and check in.

I like to think that at least some PUAs do use their greater social perception for good. For instance, Art of the Pickup recommends stopping at the first sign of muscle tension during a makeout.

I will also point out that the IOIs, IODs, and signals of consent/nonconsent vary widely between people, so PUAs can still be fooled into false positives or false negatives.

Even if PUAs are slightly more socially perceptive, they may still be operating in flawed cultural paradigm of consent.

Even if we cut out the most problematic stuff like pushing through “token resistance,” PUAs will still be mostly ignorant of different people’s traumas or capabilities in communicating about consent. This paradigm of consent has problematic consequences, and I would prefer to address it at the source—the wider culture—rather than scapegoating PUAs.

How exactly are PUAs supposed to figure out an ethical model of consent? How are they supposed to figure out why they can’t just assume that women can always easily and firmly say “no”? Nobody effectively educates them about survivor issues or about people’s different capabilities. How are they supposed to know that the PUA gurus—who have guided them correctly in other areas—are wrong about assumptions of “token resistance” or ASD?

Empathy isn’t enough. If they aren’t in the receiver role, they may not understand the challenges that receptive partners face. And even if they are in the receptive role and their boundaries are violated, they are still stuck in a paradigm where such behavior is considered acceptable. In the current culture, if a woman violates a man’s boundaries, that may teach him to be more cognizant of boundaries, or maybe it will instead teach him that those boundaries don’t count!

Feminism could theoretically help PUAs discover more ethical consent models than the broader culture. But this is another one of those things that works better in theory than in practice. While some feminist ideas are useful, it also contains a lot of stuff that could be damaging to men or marginalizing to male survivors.

Despite the above-average social perceptiveness they may have, PUAs are still locked in a cultural consent paradigm that’s hard to see out of without the right set of experiences, education, or resources.

But again, the issue of default assumptions is much like the issue of the default script: I see no compelling reason why such default assumptions, other than those that can be gathered from context (and perhaps from some preliminary research related to it) are necessary.

“Assumption” sounds like a bad word, and you and Snowdrop might be construing it differently than I do. Let’s put it like this: what sort of theories or hypotheses should initiators hold about the capabilities of people they initiate with?

You say that initiators should “gather information from context.” I fully agree with the importance of modifying your view of the other person depending on context, but doing so still rests on some sort of assumptions, hypotheses, or theories:

1. What do you do before you’ve met the person, or before you are acquainted with all the contextual information relevant to their capabilities?

2. What assumptions can you draw from the contextual information? For instance, if someone is in a nightclub, can you assume that they might be open to being approached respectfully? Are you justified in believing that they can exit the conversation if they want to? Interpreting contextual information requires background theory, and assumptions.

The question I’m asking is “what provisional hypotheses should initiators hold about the capabilities of the people their initiate with, and what theories should they use to modify those hypotheses?” That’s what I mean when I’m talking about “assumptions.”

Your next question is “why a default script?” Perhaps you and Snowdrop are skeptical of scripts because of their potential to lead to incorrect and assumptions and cause harm. I think you are construing “scripts” differently from me, and underestimating their potential to instill correct assumptions and protect people from harm.

“No means no” is a script. “Yes means yes” is a script. BDSM negotiation is a script. They are all predictable sequences of signals and negotiation.

An escalation ladder is problematic when it leads the initiate to proceed without looking for indications of consent. Escalation ladders don’t match everyone’s preferences. Nevertheless, escalation ladders do match up to the preferences of many people (for instance, most people prefer kissing before penetration). As long as escalation is consensual, an escalation script—an order of the advances—will help both people predict each other.

If avoiding surprising receptive partners is an important goal, then some sort of script (a shared understand of how sexual interaction will proceed) is important.

This is not equivalent to defining receptive/proceptive individuals as victims or children, or defining them as disempowered by default; it is to prevent the construction of an illusion of agency where it is unwarranted, which can then be used for unjustified, context-omitting interpretations.

You say that your approach isn’t to define receptive/proceptive individuals as victims, children, or disempowered, but that sometimes does sound like the implication of the arguments that you, Snowdrop, and AB pose.

The main approach you have been taking (it seems) is to encourage skepticism in initiators towards the capabilities of receptive partners. I agree that some level of skepticism is justified, and that some particular assumptions of capability (by PUAs and others) are unjustified. But unless we specify the upper bound of that skepticism, it will never stop, and it will wipe out any belief in the capabilities of others, which is equivalent to treating them as disempowered by default.

What beliefs in the other person’s agency and capability are justified? What conclusions can an initiator justifiably make about the other person’s capabilities such that they won’t be a bad person if they get something wrong? What conclusions should initiators make (or not make) based on the context?

I realize that these questions are tough, but without even provisional answers to them, we are still leaving initiators mired in skepticism and moral liability. Telling initiators “receptive partners aren’t completely incapable by default, but we can’t tell you when you can hold a justified belief in their capability” is only a small step up from “receptive partners are incapable by default.”

With due respect: the community is large, as we’ve both noted. And those discussions don’t always take place publicly. It might be worth considering that you’re not the only one who’s raised the issue, either now, or as the years have gone by. Just as an aside.

You’re right, I’m probably not the only one who has observed that pickup may not be helpful for men protecting their sexual boundaries, or for male survivors. I still think the subject is under discussed. For instance, critics of pickup may read LRs looking for male-on-female sexual violence. Yet I haven’t seen critics looking for field reports where the PUA himself was violated, but wrote it up as a brag report because he could only conceptualize the violation of his consent as an “IOI.”

Which, unfortunately, begs the question. Yes, it’s about these people; but with the aim of helping them to assimilate, or with the aim of helping them to maintain their identity when faced with a system that pressures them to abandon it?

My guess is that there is no consensus on that subject, but pickup is probably most useful to men trying to assimilate. For men who aren’t, it requires modification.

Both of those points are true. But it’s also true that that isn’t what the thread was saying. When someone writes, as that author did in #10 (that thread), that “the simple fact that she’s standing there and didn’t run off is an IOI” — you’re moving substantially away from a norm. Maybe it isn’t into the territory of the OP, but it isn’t in the realm of the statements you’re using here.

In context, the tactic of touching people to test for receptiveness (and judging their continued presence as interest) seems pretty common. If the touch is “aggressive,” then I think you’re right than it’s going outside norms.

Even if PUAs are slightly more socially perceptive, they may still be operating in flawed cultural paradigm of consent.

Precisely why I’ve been emphasizing separability between technique and default script. In a way, this relates to a later part from your comment:

In the current culture, if a woman violates a man’s boundaries, that may teach him to be more cognizant of boundaries, or maybe it will instead teach him that those boundaries don’t count!

Over the last several months, it had become apparent that there was a domestic abuse situation of this kind happening in one of the neighboring apartments, here; the individuals involved were 19 or 20 years old. It took some time to get the situation managed, through multiple contacts and, eventually, one police intervention. But one of the pivotal moments was when I was able to tell him that I was able to hear what was going on, that I’d been there, and that my reason for intervening wasn’t about him hitting her, which I had encountered no evidence of and what I’d heard, on repeated occasions, had contradicted — it was the other way around.

IME, the cultural context is one thing, as is any default script that it promotes. But what’s just as important as recognizing this, or perhaps even moreso, is providing a way to act that doesn’t require that people follow it. After that, yes, the default will still exist. But there will also be a new option. And often enough, that’s what people are looking for: another option.

Similarly, when I’ve mentioned to people who live here how long I’ve been here: if they’re familiar enough with it, they’ll bring up how it used to be “ghetto,” along with all the racial baggage that comes with. But sometimes even saying “I don’t know, man… I’ve seen enough different shit from enough different people..,” is enough to get them to check that. Because people do hear, and see, and come across things that don’t fit into the defaults. What they’re often looking for, IME, is someone else to confirm it, so that they know that the doubt isn’t just their own.

Maybe feminist theory can help with this, maybe it can’t; maybe the most accurate way is to say that it helps to be informed by that theory, among others. (Such as postcolonial, queer studies, critical race theory, et al.) Similarly, maybe IOIs and IODs aren’t a comprehensive toolkit, especially in a limited set; but maybe the most accurate way to phrase it is that they provide a measure of flexibility that would otherwise be absent, especially when combined with other, similar tools, and in the absence of a rigid blueprint.

Or, to quote a dead guy, who happened to go by the name of Lucius Annaeus Seneca:

“I follow those who have gone before me, but I allow myself to find out more, and to change or abandon much. I approve, but I do not serve. They are not masters, but guides. Read my writings as those not of one who knows the truth, but of one who seeks it, and seeks it boldly, giving himself up to no man and taking no man’s name.”

To put this in the terms of your second comment: what you’re talking about in terms of provisional hypotheses, I regard as aspects of cultural awareness, within which toolsets are applied; they are not, themselves, tools. To view them as such, I’d contend, leads to the loss of systemic flexibility that produced the problematic nature of PUA as it currently stands. “No means no” and “yes means yes,” as scripts, are examples of this, from outside of that context: viewing the first as a script led to the second as enthusiastic consent, and viewing the second as a script has highlighted problems with the enthusiastic consent standard itself (which are now being addressed, to a degree, through the “real consent” standard).

The main approach you have been taking (it seems) is to encourage skepticism in initiators towards the capabilities of receptive partners.

More “suspension of judgment regarding non-evident things.” And that goes to the point just raised: when what is, properly speaking, in the realm of cultural awareness is instead placed in the realm of tool, the risk is of reaching a conclusion prematurely, rather than continuing to perceive and evaluate until a proper threshold for decision is reached.

Contra your assertion, this does not “wipe out any belief in the capabilities of others;” it does, however, require engaging in active evaluation so as to discover what those capabilities are, which may require greater or lesser effort depending upon circumstance. As such, what is “wiped out” is the possibility of a universal heuristic, and what is produced is a view that differs from this:

Telling initiators “receptive partners aren’t completely incapable by default, but we can’t tell you when you can hold a justified belief in their capability” is only a small step up from “receptive partners are incapable by default.”

Rather, “Receptive/proceptive partners vary in their capabilities; and no hard and fast rule exists as to when you can hold a justified belief in their capability.” This is not “a small step up,” but a clarification of the problem as an epistemological one, and one that cannot be solved by the methods that you are advocating.

This is why I’ve been emphasizing the separation into two levels: cultural awareness (non-tool, context), and systemic flexibility (tools that promote recognition of and adaptability to circumstances, such as IOIs, IODs, calibration, and recognition of state breaks — although this is hardly an inclusive list). I’d contend that such an approach can achieve what a universal, or in more limited scope, broad, heuristic cannot.

Moving on to the third comment:

My guess is that there is no consensus on that subject, but pickup is probably most useful to men trying to assimilate. For men who aren’t, it requires modification.

And that, I suppose, is my point.

Since we’re both working to modify PUA from what we currently see it to be, and given the conceded effects of simply reinforcing the current state of things: why not modify it in that direction?

I didn’t include this with “no means no” and “yes means yes” because it isn’t a script in that sense. When considering checklists, safewords, aftercare, call-ins, and so on, it’s more what I’m getting at with the combination of context and toolset, and if there’s one thing that discussions (here and elsewhere) tend to demonstrate, it’s that these things fall apart when they’re viewed as scripts.

A good examination of this, restricted in scope but highlighting some of these issues, is Millar’s “The Annotated Safeword.”

More “suspension of judgment regarding non-evident things.” And that goes to the point just raised: when what is, properly speaking, in the realm of cultural awareness is instead placed in the realm of tool, the risk is of reaching a conclusion prematurely, rather than continuing to perceive and evaluate until a proper threshold for decision is reached.

I think your use of “suspension of judgment” might be more accurate than my use of “skepticism.” The question I meant to raise is not “what beliefs about capabilities are justified?”, but rather “what beliefs about capabilities are worthy of acting on?” or as you put it “what is the proper threshold for a decision?”

I will also point out that “continuing to perceive and evaluate until a proper threshold for a decision is reached” has it’s own set of problems. The first problem is epistemological: what is a “proper threshold” for a decision, and how do you know when you’ve reached it?

Second, continuing to perceive and evaluate has its own costs. Initiators don’t have an infinite timetable, because many receptive partners don’t want to wait, and will often reject initiators for being too slow, which means that both people miss out on an opportunity. If initiators wait around after expressing interest, then they risk being viewed as “wimps.” If they wait too long before expressing interest, then their eventual advances might surprise the receiver (and surprise is considered dangerous by some people in this thread), or they might be viewed as sinister/manipulative “nice guys/girls” for not making their intentions clearer earlier.

I once had a night where the person I was interested in (and who I knew was interested in me) was someone very into consent, and they didn’t make a move. So instead, I ended up getting approached by another person who had horrible ideas about consent and made me feel frightened to even try to get away, leaving me checking over my shoulder as I left the club. If the consent-conscious person had initiated faster instead of waiting, I would have avoided that experience.

I disagree with any moral calculus that only examines the potential costs of advances, and ignores their potential benefits (not just to the initiator, but also to the receiver).

Rather, “Receptive/proceptive partners vary in their capabilities; and no hard and fast rule exists as to when you can hold a justified belief in their capability.” This is not “a small step up,” but a clarification of the problem as an epistemological one, and one that cannot be solved by the methods that you are advocating.

I know that epistemologically, nothing is certain, including the beliefs of initiators in the capabilities of the people they initiate with. When I’m using the word “justification,” I’m trying to talk about the moral justification of initiators’ actions, rather than the epistemological justification of their beliefs. Sorry for phrasing that badly.

Given the fallibility of initiators’ induction and theories, how should initiators act? Must they accept responsibility for the whole problem of induction? That’s a monstrous burden. When is an initiator’s belief in the receiver’s capabilities “good enough” to serve as a basis for action?

Since we’re both working to modify PUA from what we currently see it to be, and given the conceded effects of simply reinforcing the current state of things: why not modify it in that direction?

Well, I am, but you’re probably not asking about me.

I didn’t include this with “no means no” and “yes means yes” because it isn’t a script in that sense. When considering checklists, safewords, aftercare, call-ins, and so on, it’s more what I’m getting at with the combination of context and toolset, and if there’s one thing that discussions (here and elsewhere) tend to demonstrate, it’s that these things fall apart when they’re viewed as scripts.

Second, continuing to perceive and evaluate has its own costs. Initiators don’t have an infinite timetable, because many receptive partners don’t want to wait, and will often reject initiators for being too slow, which means that both people miss out on an opportunity.

(Emphasis mine.)

This, I think, is where a difference might be entering in. Insofar as watching for IOIs and IODs, calibration, monitoring for state breaks, et al. involve information, and insofar as they take place within a dynamic process, these are perceptive and evaluative acts. So this relates to the first, epistemological point, and to the issue with scripts: by viewing these things as tools within a context, we can dynamically evaluate the point of confidence. When measured against a script, the point of confidence is set according to a standard that may or may not be statistically based; and even if it is statistically based, it may or may not apply to the current situation.

So, in one scenario, we have an open system, and one that is, essentially, communicative, operating within a context informed by cultural awareness. But in the other, we have an applied model, and one that is, in essence, an abstraction of culture, which may or may not fit to the situation at hand. Taking your club experience as an example — and noting that I’ve had similar ones, albeit not at clubs — one might conjecture that both individuals demonstrated the flaws in that second approach, if for different reasons: each had a model, but neither was able to adapt it to the situation. One responded by deferral, and the other responded by blatantly bulldozing over any incongruities that might have been apparent, and applied the model anyway.

As for how the proper threshold can be reached, I think it’s more a matter of how one can recognize the point of confidence. I can’t recall the thread offhand, but IIRC, this was discussed some time ago, in different terms, in an exchange with Pellaeon; things like starting with exchanges that would happen as a normal matter of course, exploring banter, etc., and getting to recognize signs of comfort through them. Building on that. Also, recognizing signs of discomfort, and learning how to back off gracefully.

The error, I think, is to take the position that this can be learned before one engages, so that one is completely prepared when one starts; or, alternately, so that one eventually becomes comfortable, or overrides the discomfort one has, with what one is applying. That’s a bit like trying to learn a language from textbooks, and only after one has mastered it, engage in conversation: there’s a reason why language instruction isn’t structured that way. Not if one intends to become fluent in a living one.

And this, I think — the issue of preparation — relates to what you wrote about moral justification and moral calculus, and what I gather is that this kind of drive to preemptively establish these conditions is one of the things that strikes many critics as being, in fact, immoral. Or questionably moral, at the least. Not to divert into that discussion, but the recent threads on creepiness deal with this: the centrality of acknowledging circumstances and responses as they occur, and adjusting accordingly. With this, the idea that a “blessed path,” so to speak, can be mapped is incompatible, outside of boundaries of confidence; similarly with the idea that a “damned path” exists to fall into — unless one happens to be aiming for it.

As Clarisse and Mark Manson discussed in his recent podcast, one of the issues with feminist analysis is that it’s good when it comes to the structural issues; it isn’t necessarily so when it comes to the lower-level interactions, or the microsociological level (though that last part would be my rephrase). And if I may be so bold, I think that there’s a similar concern with your perspective here: the moral calculus that you’re discussing is primarily a structural perspective, and not a low-level one.

Yet, applied to low-level interactions. As such, it encounters the same problems.

WRT the issue of BDSM negotiation:

I guess the depends on how much flexibility is built into the script.

Perhaps. After a certain point, though, it’s no longer Macbeth; it’s the First Folio, with commentary, and “script” is a dubious moniker.

And to conclude this comment, a note on this point:

Well, I am, but you’re probably not asking about me.

Of course I am. Why else do you think I was challenging you as I was on the issue of the default script?

This, I think, is where a difference might be entering in. Insofar as watching for IOIs and IODs, calibration, monitoring for state breaks, et al. involve information, and insofar as they take place within a dynamic process, these are perceptive and evaluative acts.

Watching out for those things is “evaluative,” yes, but they usually only occur in a context where you are interacting with the person, not merely evaluating. How do you know that the person is capable of safely handling an interaction with you while you are evaluating them? If you aren’t confident that they are capable of safely interacting with you, then aren’t you risking being a horrible person by interacting with them?

Evaluation requires some sort of interaction, and that interaction is subject to the concerns about capability that have been raised by you and others in this thread.

One responded by deferral, and the other responded by blatantly bulldozing over any incongruities that might have been apparent, and applied the model anyway.

To me, it does sound like Person A was following the model you suggest. They were in an “evaluative” phrase, and they didn’t reach a sufficient “threshold” for judgment that it was OK to be more direct. So they remained in “suspended judgment” (as you advocate), ejected, and went to talk to someone else, probably planning more evaluation of me later. Meanwhile, Person B swooped in and was an asshole.

If Person A had been more socially skilled and knowledgeable, perhaps they could have figured out that they could have talked to me longer or even made a move. But now we have looped back around to the limited capabilities of initiators, which you’ve acknowledged.

As for how the proper threshold can be reached, I think it’s more a matter of how one can recognize the point of confidence.

What is “the point of confidence”? At what point is your confidence sufficient for certain acts? That’s what I’m asking you about. I know that’s a big question, but I’m trying to figure out how you would advise approaching it, giving that your suspension of judgment towards the capabilities of others is hardly inspiring of confidence.

things like starting with exchanges that would happen as a normal matter of course, exploring banter, etc., and getting to recognize signs of comfort through them. Building on that. Also, recognizing signs of discomfort, and learning how to back off gracefully.

Thanks for getting more concrete. I agree that these are all great things to do, but I don’t think they solve the moral problem that you have articulated.

You speak of exchanges that would happen as a “normal matter of course,” but the concept of “normal” seems at odds with the perspective you’ve articulated upthread. Normal for who? Isn’t it true that some interactions defined as “normal” are counter to the capabilities and needs of some minorities of people? For instance, is talking to someone at a party a “normal matter of course”? How about a club?

In most discussions, my question would seem silly, but since this is a discussion where suspension of judgment about people’s capabilities is advocated, then it’s not silly.

Likewise, banter can be a great way to evaluate someone’s capabilities, but you still run into the recursive problem: how can you be sufficiently confident that someone is capable of handling banter with you in the first place? This is a non-trivial question, because some non-neurotypical or marginalized people don’t understand banter, or they perceive it as bullying. Banter is not merely evaluation, it is a type of interaction, which is subject to the concerns about capability that you have raised.

Perhaps you believe that it’s acceptable to attempt banter with people at parties, and back off if they seem uncomfortable, and that you aren’t risking being a bad person by behaving in this way. If so, then it seems that you do have initial confidence about particular capabilities (e.g. ability to receive banter), at least in a certain context. That’s exactly the sort of thing I’m trying to get you to spell out.

The error, I think, is to take the position that this can be learned before one engages, so that one is completely prepared when one starts; or, alternately, so that one eventually becomes comfortable, or overrides the discomfort one has, with what one is applying. That’s a bit like trying to learn a language from textbooks, and only after one has mastered it, engage in conversation: there’s a reason why language instruction isn’t structured that way.

Right, which is the same reason we don’t consider people to be horrible miscreants when they mess up trying to learn a language through real-world interaction. If two people learning each other’s language have a miscommunication, we don’t automatically place most of the blame on the person who initiated the conversation.

But in sexual ethics, some people do want to place some or all of the responsibility for miscommunication on the shoulders of initiators, rather than on the receiver or on the culture. That’s the attitude that I’m objecting to. If learning to initiate is as complex as learning a new language, and we expect people to learn through interaction with others, then there must be some tolerance for miscommunication.

Not to divert into that discussion, but the recent threads on creepiness deal with this: the centrality of acknowledging circumstances and responses as they occur, and adjusting accordingly.

From a low-level analysis, I think our practical approaches as initiators are nearly identical. Basically, we throw everything at the problem, combining our knowledge of cultural scripts and norms with contextual and situational evaluation of various cues, and with knowledge that people have different capabilities and vulnerabilities.

It’s exactly my own efforts to initiate safely and effectively which lead me to appreciate why it’s a nontrivial challenge, and that doing it with very high reliability is simply beyond the capabilities of most people, at least, without extensive education.

Initiating with a safety rate of 80-90% is probably pretty easy for people who aren’t assholes, and should be expected. Initiating with a safety rate of 90-99% is more difficult, but probably achievable for people with above-average education and social skills. Initiating with a safety rate of 99%-99.9% and higher (e.g. the ability to make hundreds of advances on average without one miscommunication) is probably only achievable in this culture by artistic/technical/ethical wizards. (Of course, these numbers are guesswork: the point is that the higher the safety rate, the less people are capable of initiating at that level of reliability.)

If people choose to spend their lunch break sipping a latte and reading Confessions on Kindle, then I applaud them. If they spend their evenings reading sexual assault forums and neurodiversity material, then I applaud them. If they attain the ability to achieve “systemic flexibility” and adjust to circumstances and context, then I applaud them, too, and I appreciate the extensive work it took them to get to that point.

My question is: what about the people who can’t achieve such a godly skillset, who lack the capabilities, or who mess up while attaining it? Do they deserve all or most of the responsibility for miscommunication? Especially given that initiators are widely known to be fallible? Remember, this isn’t merely a conversation about the safety of receptive partners, it’s also a conversation about stigma and harm towards initiators.

And if I may be so bold, I think that there’s a similar concern with your perspective here: the moral calculus that you’re discussing is primarily a structural perspective, and not a low-level one.

I agree with you that this discussion is flipping back and forth between a low-level individual perspective and a structural perspective, but I’m not the only one doing this.

On an individual level, safety is best served when initiators do their best to avoid miscommunication, while still initiating in a way that is possibly effective. I think I’ve already acknowledged this point. But it cuts both ways: safety is also served when receivers do their best to avoid miscommunication, understand the different scripts that initiators might predictably be using, recognize the sorts of IOIs and IODs that initiators may be looking for, and correct predictable wrong ideas that initiators may get.

In an ideal world, perhaps receivers would not need to try to anticipate all the scripts that initiators might be running, or which of their signals initiators would interpret as IOIs. But speaking of an ideal world puts the discussion in a structural realm. Placing most or all responsibility on initiators for miscommunication also presupposes some structural distribution of responsibility and moral calculus.

If we are talking about ideal structure, there are many possible perspectives on what it might look like, including structures that skew responsibility towards receivers, that split responsibility evenly, or that do away with the concept of initiator and receiver altogether. I would be very cautious of judging either initiators or receivers for failing to do what they should supposedly do in some ideal moral structure that was established by fiat without notifying them.

I believe it’s possible to encourage safety in low-level interaction without committing to a moral view that demonizes people for doing what they are taught regardless of their capabilities and education. If you agree, then perhaps we’ve been talking past each other.

Yet, applied to low-level interactions. As such, it encounters the same problems.

Structural considerations sometimes do guide low-level action, and the expectations that people consider fair to apply to others.

I think we mostly agree on the low-level “best practices” for initiators (correct me if I’m wrong). Do we disagree about how initiators who fall short of these best practices should be judged?

Of course I am. Why else do you think I was challenging you as I was on the issue of the default script?

You asked:

Since we’re both working to modify PUA from what we currently see it to be, and given the conceded effects of simply reinforcing the current state of things: why not modify it in that direction?

Well, I did kinda recently contribute to a book on the subject, so I find your question curious. Another of the ways I’m attempting to modify PUA is by getting non-PUAs to recognize the components that might be useful to facilitate ethical and effective escalation in the present. For example, evaluating the potential of something like “active disinterest” may require liberating it from its pickup context.

How do you know that the person is capable of safely handling an interaction with you while you are evaluating them?

By involving the other part of the pair, the one that you omitted: perception.

Evaluation occurs during interaction, but does not require it; we evaluate all of the time, without interaction, including in judging distance and motion, and planning out sequences of actions. It’s how we determine when it’s our turn to speak in a conversation, how to move through a crowd, and when or whether to ask a particular store employee what aisle the toilet brushes might be in. But all of this is a basic observation, if not always basic for someone to handle, for the reasons mentioned later on in your comment; the point is that the kind of interactions that we’re discussing might involve a significantly different level of difficulty and risk, but that does not make them sui generis.

And this goes to the point about the “normal matter of course.” IOIs and IODs, for example: in the end, these are merely a restricted subset of common reactions, indicating comfort with and interest in an interaction, or discomfort with or disinterest regarding it. As such, the potential to become familiar with the general type — of which IOIs and IODs are particular forms — is present in every interaction we have, to a greater or lesser degree. The “normal matter of course” is thus, in this sense, going about our daily lives.

And extending from that, it’s possible to say why it isn’t possible to give a hard and fast definition for the “standard of confidence:” daily lives vary. As such, risk tolerances vary, and a threshold for decision (i.e., standard of confidence) will thus vary from individual to individual. Which brings things back to the subjects of comfort, discomfort, IODs and IOIs, and the need to perceive and evaluate in an active way, building these skills gradually from the materials that one has at hand, and is able to manage.

Which may be clubs, or parties, or coffee shops, or managed situations, such as groups and/or individual therapy. One starts where one needs.

Regardless, it’s worth noting that my phrasing was “suspension of judgment regarding non-evident things,” and not simply “suspension of judgment.” That difference is important: the issue is of distinguishing between what can be concluded based upon available evidence and available means, and that regarding which no conclusion can be reached one way or the other using that evidence and those means. This does not mean that one does not act until all things are known; it means that one identifies that which can be known and that which cannot, and on this basis, decides whether or not to act.

Or, in other words: discernment.

Moving on to the last point in your first comment:

If learning to initiate is as complex as learning a new language, and we expect people to learn through interaction with others, then there must be some tolerance for miscommunication.

Which goes to the point that I raised WRT the creepiness threads: extending that tolerance requires that one acknowledges circumstances and responses as they occur, and adjusts one’s behavior accordingly. What the attempt to establish safe conditions preemptively does is suggest an attempt to establish conditions in which such monitoring and adjustment will not be necessary: that’s why I’m saying that it strikes people as immoral, or questionably moral at best.

I would like to emphasize, however, that I’m not saying that this is the intention. What I’m saying is that it presents the impression that a person trusts neither themselves nor others; and this inspires little of it, where there must be some for tolerance to be founded.

For the second comment:

From a low-level analysis, I think our practical approaches as initiators are nearly identical. Basically, we throw everything at the problem, combining our knowledge of cultural scripts and norms with contextual and situational evaluation of various cues, and with knowledge that people have different capabilities and vulnerabilities.

But there’s the fundamental difference: cultural scripts. That is a core element in your perspective, utilized in a radically different way in mine. Your percentage breakdown is a good illustration of this: whereas you focus on “initiating with a safety rate,” my focus is on initiating with an ability to recover from unforeseen errors.

Or, to put that differently: safety cannot, under even the best circumstances, be ensured by script.

To go from your statements: there’s a certain safety percentage that comes from not being an asshole, and there’s a certain additional percentage that probably comes from above-average education (certain types, not necessarily academic) and social skills. But beyond this — and, I’d argue, a substantial part of the “not being an asshole” aspect of things itself — is the ability to recover from missteps, and from blatant fuckups. It’s the ability to diverge from script when necessary, in order to get things back on track smoothly, when it’s appropriate to do so, and end things well, when it isn’t.

So, to turn to the question that you’ve been asking:

what about the people who can’t achieve such a godly skillset, who lack the capabilities, or who mess up while attaining it? Do they deserve all or most of the responsibility for miscommunication?

Your framing only allows for certain kinds of answers, and ones that presuppose that following scripts is a morally and ethically superior choice — assuming that the proper scripts can be identified. Where the blame lies, and where responsibility is assigned, depends upon script choice, upon how much of an educational burden is assigned to any given role, and upon how much compliance can be reasonably expected given an individual’s personal position and limitations. And this is what I was getting at with the point about applying a structural perspective to low-level interactions. The issue isn’t about recognizing that structural elements are in play; it’s about whether or not they’re being applied in appropriate or effective ways.

So it’s difficult to say, when it comes to “I think we mostly agree on the low-level ‘best practices’ for initiators (correct me if I’m wrong).” On some points, our differences are clear: my perspective on active disinterest, for example, is clearly irreconcilable with yours. But on others, it’s more difficult to say, because it seems that you’re asking me to make a moral evaluation presupposing acceptance of your framework, before evaluating the practices themselves.

In sum: no, our perspectives aren’t identical. The issue is with scripts. What you see as the solution, I see as the fundamental problem.

Which goes back to why the question was, without curious impression intended, directed at you. And as a short aside on that note:

Well, I did kinda recently contribute to a book on the subject, so I find your question curious.

When it comes to the contribution, I believe that you did; seeing as my review of the book is linked from its page here, with a small excerpt as well, one might think that I’ve read it, and so would already know. But if “modified” and “modified in that direction” were taken as the same… I can see how that might be confusing, and why one might assume that I’d skimmed.

The error, I think, is to take the position that this can be learned before one engages, so that one is completely prepared when one starts; or, alternately, so that one eventually becomes comfortable, or overrides the discomfort one has, with what one is applying.

What the attempt to establish safe conditions [for initiation (addendum SAM)] preemptively does is suggest an attempt to establish conditions in which such monitoring and adjustment will not be necessary: that’s why I’m saying that it strikes people as immoral, or questionably moral at best.

And that’s what you consider the SC (based upon assumed standard scripts) as doing? I, on the other hand, as Hugh, I suppose, with whose points in this discussion I almost entirely agree, would say that the essence of learning social skills, particularly in this area is about becoming better at reading other people and reducing the likelihood of running into problems, and, I would say, if successful, that includes a growing tolerance with respect to this –

But there’s the fundamental difference: cultural scripts. That is a core element in your perspective, utilized in a radically different way in mine. Your percentage breakdown is a good illustration of this: whereas you focus on “initiating with a safety rate,” my focus is on initiating with an ability to recover from unforeseen errors.

I don’t see the contradiction at all. The latter clearly improves the former. What Hugh seems to want, and what I agree with, is an acceptance that making well intentioned mistakes (like when learning a language) is not considered immoral, but an accident.

Clarisse actually sort of solved this once in a previous thread in a conversation with Motley about “absolute certainty” with respect to intiation. She said, and I’m sorry I can’t find the quote right now, that feminists are mostly concerned about this “absolute knowledge” bit because they fear it’s being used by abusive people to ex-post justify their behavior, they’re not so much concerned with respect to well-intentioned mistakes but they don’t mind painting these things with the same brush , hoping to avoid the former – while I believe that such an approach is more likely to prevent approaches by people who are more at risk for the latter.

Allowing oneself to make mistakes while learning is essential. And it is essential to not consider oneself a bad person for making them – that’s what *I* consider safety in approaching: I don’t want to put my entire identity on the line when saying hello. If making honest mistakes is considered immoral – and, to me, this is how I read some of your (and some feminists’) statements, then your approach of contextual learning is logically impossible, and any interaction necessatily requires a scripted straigh-jacket.

I, on the other hand, as Hugh, I suppose, with whose points in this discussion I almost entirely agree, would say that the essence of learning social skills, particularly in this area is about becoming better at reading other people and reducing the likelihood of running into problems […]

Which is basically rephrasing my point. That’s how I’m saying that Hugh’s perspective and mine differ: while both of ours have reducing the likelihood of problems as a goal, mine assumes that problems cannot be entirely foreseen, and instead of handling this first by attempting to decide whether or not a mistake was well-intentioned, asserts the need for the ability to actively monitor, respond, and adjust — something that I contend is compromised by an emphasis upon script, especially when that emphasis is undue or the scripts themselves are problematic or flawed.

I agree that allowing oneself to make mistakes while learning is essential. But in addition to this, it is essential that one make the effort to restrict those mistakes to the kind one can handle, recover from, and adjust for; and as one’s skill in avoiding mistakes increases by learning, so does one’s ability to recover when they are made, so long as this is not compromised by the way one learns. And my assertion is that an emphasis upon script produces that kind of compromise.

And that’s where the issue comes in with your final statement:

If making honest mistakes is considered immoral – and, to me, this is how I read some of your (and some feminists’) statements, then your approach of contextual learning is logically impossible, and any interaction necessatily requires a scripted straigh-jacket.

Making honest mistakes isn’t the problem; demonstrating an awareness of one’s limits, and making a good faith effort to account for them, is. These are the conditions for tolerance. When this is conflated with a judgment of mistakes, in and of themselves, and the result is to drive oneself into the seemingly safe harbor of scripts, the ability to develop the skills that would allow one to escape that situation is sabotaged.

I agree that allowing oneself to make mistakes while learning is essential. But in addition to this, it is essential that one make the effort to restrict those mistakes to the kind one can handle, recover from, and adjust for; and as one’s skill in avoiding mistakes increases by learning, so does one’s ability to recover when they are made, so long as this is not compromised by the way one learns. And my assertion is that an emphasis upon script produces that kind of compromise.

I think that very much depends on the scripts. I would contend that scripts can be one of the primary tools to reduce complexity and thus *allow* to develop the skills you’re referring to, but, of course, they can also be used to explain away complexity that actually exists.

When this is conflated with a judgment of mistakes, in and of themselves, and the result is to drive oneself into the seemingly safe harbor of scripts, the ability to develop the skills that would allow one to escape that situation is sabotaged.

Well yes. But that basically makes the case for ensuring that it’s not easy to conflate those things by making sure there’s a narrative that doesn’t make it easy to assume judgment of mistakes. I mean, I’d say the very existence of this thread demonstrates that there is no such narrative. Hence the increased likelihood of misunderstanding, hence, possibly, the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I would contend that scripts can be one of the primary tools to reduce complexity and thus *allow* to develop the skills you’re referring to, but, of course, they can also be used to explain away complexity that actually exists.

(Emphasis mine.)

Again, the problem is with the prominence. Or, as I phrased it in response to Hugh, of how appropriate or effective the application of structural elements is, when scripts have that centrality.

Some scripts may be improvements over others; that was the case with “no means no,” “yes means yes,” and “real consent,” and was the point of mentioning that sequence. But this does not alter the point about prominence.

But that basically makes the case for ensuring that it’s not easy to conflate those things by making sure there’s a narrative that doesn’t make it easy to assume judgment of mistakes.

What that would do is compel tolerance instead of judgment. That’s a very different thing from satisfying conditions that would lead to tolerance instead of judgment, especially if those conditions amount to, essentially, self-awareness and good faith.

This, however, is separate from the conflation that I was aiming to describe: that was about conflating a lack of tolerance, due to someone failing to meet the conditions, with judging someone harshly, as if one had not considered tolerance at all. (Especially worth noting in the context of ongoing and factional debates.)

My interest in scripts, shared understandings, and background experiences is partially because I believe that those things can be used in ways that would keep me safer and more comfortable as a receptive partner by making it easier for people to predict what the other is doing and feeling. While throwing those things away might make people less likely to make some mistakes about my consent, it might make them more likely to make other mistakes about my consent.

…

It’s impossible to step entirely outside of scripts or cultural background knowledge. “No means no” and “yes means yes” are both scripts, as I conceptualize them. Even if you co-develop a new script and set of understandings with each person you date, being able to develop such a script in a safe way would require some other script and shared understandings about the appropriate way to co-develop a new script.

The fundamental point I am making is not about the existence of scripts, but about their compatibility and adaptability. No means no, yes means yes and BDSM negotiations are scripts that have a considerable amount of overlap, and therefore are less likely to cause harmful conflicts when they encounter one another – they also have a certain amount of ability to check for other scripts running (although that doesn’t always work).

But when incompatible scripts encounter one another (for example, “ignore the first two nos” meets “no means no”) then there’s going to be a much greater chance of a harmful consequence. That’s obviously an extreme example, and most script incompatibilities tend to be on a more subtle level, but still capable of producing positive feedback loops leading to harmful situations. For example, my script used to be that saying “how are you?” to a close acquaintance will get any major events out in the open, and that “okay” was a positive situation; but I got into trouble with a partner for whom “how are you?” only ever called for a quick, one word answer, and for whom “okay” implied “not as good as they could be” – and sometimes I would breeze into telling about my day when she actually had some troubles she wanted to unload first. It took a while to figure out that I wasn’t being insensitive, and that she wasn’t as secure as I thought.

The issue isn’t the existence of scripts, but how a person operating in one script can successfully identify in time to avoid harm being done, that the other person is not running the same script but a different and potentially incompatible one? Given that some scripts seem to call directly for ignoring any signals that might indicate an alternative script, I would characterise those scripts as inherently unethical.

With discussion of calibration, I think that one aspect of this is addressed, but it leaves a lot to be desired.

In general, this is based on scientific method, in that one needs to be aware of what other explanations might exist for the behaviour, that would mean that the theory (script) is not proved (shared with the other person).

Once a script-incompatibility has been identified, how can this be resolved without doing harm? Under what conditions does a script end and a new script be substituted based on the new conditions?

All of which, I think, is groping towards the types of concepts outlined by Infra:

To put this in the terms of your second comment: what you’re talking about in terms of provisional hypotheses, I regard as aspects of cultural awareness, within which toolsets are applied; they are not, themselves, tools. To view them as such, I’d contend, leads to the loss of systemic flexibility that produced the problematic nature of PUA as it currently stands.

…

Contra your assertion, this does not “wipe out any belief in the capabilities of others;” it does, however, require engaging in active evaluation so as to discover what those capabilities are, which may require greater or lesser effort depending upon circumstance.

***

As far as “moral justification” goes, I think that an initiator takes a risk, that’s the deal with initiating. There is no “moral” component except inasmuch as the initiator should not, in initiating, impose too much risk on the receptive partner. It is how the initiator deals with the range of responses possible for the receptive partner that indicates a moral dimension, and seeking to claim a “moral justification” strikes me as a way of trying to avoid having to respond ethically. A receptive partner can indicate comfort with the current level of engagement, indicate a willingness to raise the level of risk/interaction, or reject it, or request an even lower level. He/she could also turn initiator, deliberately re-raising the risk level themselves rather than waiting for the initiator to do so. It seems to me that a lot of the criticisms come not from the initiation, but from the development after a response has come.

Which point goes some way to answer you here:

Watching out for those things is “evaluative,” yes, but they usually only occur in a context where you are interacting with the person, not merely evaluating. How do you know that the person is capable of safely handling an interaction with you while you are evaluating them? If you aren’t confident that they are capable of safely interacting with you, then aren’t you risking being a horrible person by interacting with them?

This, however, is separate from the conflation that I was aiming to describe: that was about conflating a lack of tolerance, due to someone failing to meet the conditions, with judging someone harshly, as if one had not considered tolerance at all. (Especially worth noting in the context of ongoing and factional debates.)

well, I don’t really understand the last reference. With respect to the difference between “lack of tolerance” and “harsh judgment”, it seems like you’re again putting what I would call undue burden on one party to always assume good faith while not asking for clarity and good faith from the other, particularly since it appears easy to communicate “lack of tolerance” and “harsh judgment” discernably different.

It wasn’t one. I was stating that this is something particularly to be aware of in the context of ongoing debates where participants are members of one or another faction, whether that’s sex worker and abolitionist, radical feminist and sex-positive feminist, anarchist and republican, Star Trek fan and Star Wars fan, or whatever.

As far as the remainder:

To further clarify what I attempted to clarify earlier: I’m saying that the determination is made depending on whether or not self-awareness and good faith are demonstrated, and I’m rejecting the imposition of a rule of assumption, and the use of a narrative that would compel, either way.

This is, fundamentally, the same issue as that involved with adjusting to events and circumstances as they occur; similarly, there may be cases in which good or bad faith may be the presumption, based upon previous experiences, and this is analogous to the issue of cultural awareness.

The undue burden only exists when these elements are overridden by the imposition of a rule of assumption, or the use of a narrative that compels, which is an example of the problem that I’m attempting to highlight with the elevation of scripts to a position of unwarranted prominence.

similarly, there may be cases in which good or bad faith may be the presumption, based upon previous experiences, and this is analogous to the issue of cultural awareness.

And how is “cultural awareness” not awareness of cultural scripts? I agree with your point that scripts can be a curse (when they are demanding strict adherence), but I also believe they can be a blessing (to reduce complexity and allow people to learn how to actually interact in the first place). It really depends on the scripts and the people involved in learning and teaching. And I believe that it’s pretty much impossible to measure the “relative prominence of scripts” in an interaction, particularly with respect to their positive or negative effects on said interaction in a generally applicable way beyond stating that “no scripts are as bad as too rigid scripts”.

Only if someone’s intent on reading something into it, which leads to nowhere good, and for no good reason. Which is why I included the reference to George Takei.

(Maybe no one is useful for all occasions, but damn if he doesn’t come close.)

And how is “cultural awareness” not awareness of cultural scripts?

That’s precisely the point: awareness of, which isn’t necessarily the same as application of.

Being aware that a script may be followed isn’t the same as following a script. The second tends to tie one to a pattern of action, a pattern of argument, and a pattern of response; the first allows one to not only participate in, but also anticipate and diverge from, these things. And that’s one of the ways in which the prominence of scripts can be ascertained: by noting patterns of behavior, and the relative flexibility (or lack thereof) of response.

That was the point of my response to Hugh, earlier in the thread: that there’s a difference between viewing these things as tools, and viewing them as contexts within which tools are applied.

That was the point of my response to Hugh, earlier in the thread: that there’s a difference between viewing these things as tools, and viewing them as contexts within which tools are applied.

of course there’s a difference. In the process of learning, the former comes before the latter. In other words, you need to know the rules if you want to break them. It’s as true for art as it is for interactions with people.

That is one way of learning, which isn’t always effective. As noted, language instruction has changed because of its shortcomings; and as Lily noted in #23, if through hyperbole, there’s a similar problem when it comes to art instruction.

This is going around in circles, Sam.

Which is exactly the problem that I’m highlighting as emerging from a reliance upon scripts.

That is one way of learning, which isn’t always effective. As noted, language instruction has changed because of its shortcomings;

great, change it, improve it, but there’s probably never gonna be a flawless system of learning, and not all students will master the language in the end. You’re right, this is going round in circles – but I do believe they’re, at least to a degree, hermeneutic ones (which, then, would remind of what I consider to be your didactic proposal…)

there’s probably never gonna be a flawless system of learning, and not all students will master the language in the end.

Certainly, there may never be a single perfect learning system that works for all people, because people are different. There’s the Visual/Auditory/Kinaesthetic range of learning styles, and there’s other ways of classifying differences in learning approaches as well. Different teaching approaches and systems work better or worse for an individual learner based on the learner’s aptitudes.

A script-based teacher, who knows a “System of Learning”, will find the students whose learning styles are ill-suited to that system to be lazy, or inattentive, or disruptive, or otherwise “bad pupils”. But a teacher who views teaching as a context within which various tools are applied as appropriate, will adapt to the learning style of the student and choose techniques that accord with their student, enabling much better communication.

I’m having difficulty keeping oriented in this discussion. I think people are defining terms in different ways, or envisioning completely different scenarios exemplifying the practices or attitudes they support or oppose.

Here are the things I think we all agree on:

– That initiating has elements of both an art and a science.
– That it’s a good thing when individual initiators are sensitive to the individual characteristics of the receiver, and to contextual knowledge of the situation.
– That receptive partners sometimes have an advantage at averting particular types of miscommunication, or making the capabilities known.
– That both initiators and receptive partners have different capabilities to engage in communication or make their capabilities and intentions known, and different cultural educations.
– That initiators should be alert for when their beliefs about the receiver are wrong, or when the situation is going wrong, and adjust or back off.
– That initiators should not knowingly take advantage of diminished capability of receivers (like the practices of the PUA criticized in the OP)

There seem to be differences of views on the following subjects:

– What exactly a “script” means, what it means to follow/employ/use/rely on one, their predictive value, and the potential for scripts to facilitate or harm communication about consent.

– The distribution of responsibility, fault, blame, etc… when miscommunications of different types occur, and how much falls on the initiator, the receiver, or the culture.

– The fairness of different distributions of responsibility.

– Whether initiating contains some inherent or non-inherent-but-highly-structural risk that initiators mostly shoulder, and to what degree (if any) receptive partners share/shoulder/accept/consent to that risk by mutual participation.

– What responsibilities receptive partners have as a condition of participation in mutual sexual interaction with initiators, or expecting/requesting advances.

– What level of capability (or cultural knowledge) initiators can count on from receivers without a non-trivial risk of being blamed for miscommunication due to the difference in capability and/or cultural knowledge.

Does that sound accurate? Are there any other agreements or disagreements I’m missing?

On my part, I’d say that’s pretty much accurate. The one point on which I’d qualify it is to say that the points of disagreement probably all derive from the first, and relate to Sam’s mention of hermeneutics.

I don’t know whether or not it’s possible to boil that down to something that would be suitable for a comment, so linking to the SEP’s article might have to do for now. What we’re probably dealing with is a difference akin to that between Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics, or Dilthey’s, and the later philosophical type of Hans-Georg Gadamer (or, arguably, Paul Ricoeur).

This, really, was the “presupposing acceptance of your framework” point I was getting at in #167. Deep water, but does it help to clarify?

That receptive partners sometimes have an advantage at averting particular types of miscommunication, or making the capabilities known.

It’s not necessarily that I disagree (although I am currently sceptical), I just don’t see how that works. Specifically, it seems to me that if it does work, then it presupposes the previous point, “individual initiators are sensitive to the individual characteristics of the receiver, and to contextual knowledge of the situation.”

Otherwise, it seems to me that it is necessarily the case that a person on the receiving end of an approach is being placed into a role or game before zie has a chance to check which game, and by which rules, zie is being expected to play. Signalling that one is not in fact playing by those rules depends upon the initiator being receptive to the notion that other ways of playing (or choosing not to play) are possible. If the initiator lacks awareness (as in the later point as well), then these signals are unheard (see, again, my example of wanting people not “trying to cheer me up” in #127).

***

to what degree (if any) receptive partners share/shoulder/accept/consent to that risk by mutual participation.

Well, I would say “to the degree that they also initiate”. I’ve been thinking about this discussion of “initiator” and “receptive partner” and wondering whether these are being viewed as static, unchanging roles. But typically, as you’ve implied, there is some complicity in a successful approach-interaction between the two. Maybe, therefore, “initiator” might be best understood as “the person taking/having the initiative”.

To make an approach, obviously, requires taking the initiative – the approacher [A]has the initiative because zie makes the first move, and seeks to set a situation that is favourable to the desired outcome. The more of a script or chat-up technique A is using, the greater hir ability to retain he initiative by steering the conversation, and the fact of having a desired outcome already in place also helps to maintain initiative. The approached [B] takes the initiative if/when zie starts to do more than respond (whether favourably or passively) to A, but starts to steer the interaction towards hir own intentions (which may be compatible with, or complementary to, those of A). If B does not want the interaction to continue, then taking the initiative is successfully steering it to an end, or just leaving. An example of complementary initiative-taking might be, A: “how about going for a coffee?” B: “I know just the place!” as opposed to, B: “okay, that sounds like fun.”

Given that a lot of PUA advice seems to imply that having B (where B is female) take the initiative is harmful to the outcomes desired by A, this places responsibility with A.

It should be noted that taking the initiative (especially in a negative way, to end an interaction) can be very hard. For example, I have had to work on being assertive enough to ignore it and instead put the handset down when a cold-caller asks me a question to try to continue the phone call. I am sure that their scripts rely on people’s unwillingness to take initiative to make it possible to lengthen the contact. It seems to me that (some of) the techniques in PUA (both ethical and less so) also make use of that tendency. Thus, responsibility tends to stay with the person who makes the first approach because that person maintains initiative.

That receptive partners sometimes have an advantage at averting particular types of miscommunication, or making the capabilities known.

SnowdropExplodes said:

It’s not necessarily that I disagree (although I am currently sceptical), I just don’t see how that works. Specifically, it seems to me that if it does work, then it presupposes the previous point, “individual initiators are sensitive to the individual characteristics of the receiver, and to contextual knowledge of the situation.”

As an example I gave upthread, I have a couple vulnerabilities which cause a difficulty saying “no” that would be difficult for an initiator to figure out without asking questions that I would consider intrusive. It’s much easier for me to make my needs known that to expect the other person to figure them out.

And yes, my communication of my needs requires the other person to be sensitive to that communication.

Otherwise, it seems to me that it is necessarily the case that a person on the receiving end of an approach is being placed into a role or game before zie has a chance to check which game, and by which rules, zie is being expected to play.

Your framing here seems to presuppose a much greater amount of agency on the part of the initiator than the receiver. This framing may accurately describe a cold approach, but it might not be so applicable to a date.

In a cold approach, “not moving away” is not necessarily a demonstration of agentic participation. However, if the receiver gives their number to someone, takes the call, sets up a date, and drives over, that’s a greater amount of agency. A situation like leaving a bar without someone falls somewhere in between.

You speak of initiators placing receptive partners into a role or game, but what about receptive partners placing themselves into a role or game? Or what about receptive partners placing the initiators into a role or game?

Placing the receptive partner into a role very quickly without giving them a chance to check the nature of the game implies a certain amount of speed. That may be present in a cold approach, same-day pull attempt. But in situations like a longer timeframe (e.g. getting someone’s number, then calling them up for a date) there may well be time for the receiver to check which game is being played, or to flake if they can’t tell.

Initiators may act by thrusting a game on a receiver. Alternatively, initiators may invite receivers to join into a game, and believe that if the receiver accepts, then they are sufficiently aware of the rules.

I am not sure that “games” are necessarily defined or set up so asymmetrically as you suggest.

To make an approach, obviously, requires taking the initiative – the approacher [A]has the initiative because zie makes the first move, and seeks to set a situation that is favourable to the desired outcome.

In situations that the initiator sets up, the initiator has the initiative. But not all situations are like that. In dating, the receptive partner generally has input into the time, place, and length of a date. Receivers can also indicate what sort of initiating they do and don’t like (yes, sometimes this is hard, especially if the initiator isn’t giving any time, but it’s perfectly viable in some situations).

It should be noted that taking the initiative (especially in a negative way, to end an interaction) can be very hard.

That’s correct… for some sorts of interactions. Again, it seems that we are thinking about different sorts of situations. It can indeed be awkward and difficult to exit a cold approach politely. It can also be awkward to deal with casual touch, or to ask someone to leave your apartment.

Other situations are different. If someone gives you a text message inviting you out, it may not be difficult to ignore it, or to make an excuse. It may also be easy (for many people) to refuse to leave their friends at a bar to go somewhere with a stranger.

It seems to me that (some of) the techniques in PUA (both ethical and less so) also make use of that tendency. Thus, responsibility tends to stay with the person who makes the first approach because that person maintains initiative.

Some pickup techniques may run into the difficulty some women have being assertive. I believe that PUAs should be made more aware of this. It is not clear to me that PUAs know about this tendency, or that they are deliberately taking advantage. I believe that PUAs may make unwarranted assumptions about women’s agency, but I don’t think it’s common for them to knowingly make use of other people’s difficulties in expressing agency. I think PUAs (sometimes mistakenly) believe that women can put on the brakes if they really want to.

The post Clarisse criticizes is unusual from pickup discussion I’ve seen, but saying that it shouldn’t be difficult to dominate or force drunk young women. The post Infra cites where PUAs use touch to test for receptiveness (believing “if she doesn’t like it, she will move away”) is problematic in it’s assumptions of agency, but is not designed to make use of a lack of agency.

The post Infra cites where PUAs use touch to test for receptiveness (believing “if she doesn’t like it, she will move away”) is problematic in it’s assumptions of agency, but is not designed to make use of a lack of agency.

This, I think, is why we have different views of that thread. I’d agree that the original author there doesn’t advocate exploiting lack of agency in the same way as the author of the thread discussed in the OP here does; it isn’t predatory in the same sense. But it is designed to address situations in which, in the PUA’s view, sufficient agency is not being demonstrated, in order to compel it: “Force the girl get IN or OUT.”

This doesn’t “make use of a lack of agency” in the sense of exploitation, but it does make use of it in the sense of a precondition: the approach is least applicable (if that word is, itself, applicable) in situations where one’s agency is already being demonstrated, and most applicable where it is not, which is when it also becomes most dangerous to apply it. This is more than a problematic assumption about agency; it’s an attempt to circumvent a circumstance relating to agency, and it does so in a patently high-risk way.

The Antioch College Sexual Offense Prevention Policy, in items 2, 3, and 5 of its Consent section (using the officially adopted version from June 8, 1996 as the reference) states that verbal consent is to be secured before the physical and/or sexual activity takes place; in section 5, this wording is explicit. Only in section 6 is there anything remotely similar, but that’s specifically in reference to individuals who have already consented, and in reference to how consent is to be withdrawn.

The technique in the thread in question, by contrast, employs touch in order to bring about, and arguably compel, a decision regarding consent, from those who have not yet given it.

They’re not equivalent, or even approximate; the two views are polar opposites.

I guess I should mention that I have not read the thread you linked to but instead relied on your and Hugh’s characterization. That said, there seem to be two questions with respect to Antioch: a) does the touch used compel the yes or no constitute a sexual activity? b) can verbally compelling said decision possibly constitue a sexual activity?

As for the latter, I quote the blogpost linked to above:

But what does SOPP really do? It doesn’t stop harassment. My first month at Antioch I was verbally harassed very badly, in the form of questions. I would say no to one sexual position and I would quickly be asked if I was open to another, and this would go on and on and on.

Either way, touch or not, I would say that forcing a decision for or against consent, and as such, asking for consent prior to where such consent could be “naturally” expected in an interaction, can be in violation of the feedback process and possibly violating consent in itself – *if* a recipient finds it hard to say “no” even though he’d like to (as per Hugh’s statement).

Any way, I googled for the SOPP and found this short video demonstration (filmed by two fully dressed women, but there’s some touching of genitalia, kissing, and graphic language going on, so, not sure if that’s SFW for everyone. Very interesting demonstrating… for discourse purposes, I think it’s great that two women did that demonstration ;)

There you go. Putting “Antioch College Sexual Offense Prevention Policy” into Google, with or without quotes, pulled that up on the first page. On .com, .co.uk, .fr, .it, .co.jp, and .de, along with others that I tried.

You might want to try turning off your personalized search results.

As for the remainder, let me put it this way:

If I point out that The Agonist and Dazzle Vision are different bands, the latter’s song “Second” notwithstanding, that doesn’t mean that I’ve become a fan of either one. If I say that, given the choice between the two, and only those two, I’d go with Dazzle Vision, doesn’t mean that I’ve become a fan. I still prefer songs like Djerv’s “Madman” and am still a far bigger fan of exist†trace.

Same thing here.

I’ve pointed out the differences between the techniques of that thread and the Antioch SOPP. And I’ll add, for the purposes of completeness, that, given the choice between the two, and only those two, I’d take Antioch. But that doesn’t mean that the SOPP doesn’t have problems, or that it can’t be improved upon, or that there aren’t other options that are preferable to both.

Nor does it mean that anyone who responds to it being brought into the discussion, or to any argument within which that occurs, is under any obligation to defend it.

Though, that having been said, I will address one point, because it isn’t about the Antioch SOPP as such:

Either way, touch or not, I would say that forcing a decision for or against consent, and as such, asking for consent prior to where such consent could be “naturally” expected in an interaction, can be in violation of the feedback process and possibly violating consent in itself – *if* a recipient finds it hard to say “no” even though he’d like to (as per Hugh’s statement).

That “touch or not” point is the one at issue.

In a similar vein, one might say that a corpse and a living person are both human beings, and that treating them with dignity is an obligation. And from a certain point of view, this is true; but dead or alive is a non-trivial difference. One cannot simply skip over it and go to the general principle. At the very least, one would find the conversation dull, the games disappointing, and might have to use an inordinate amount of air freshener; which is only to mention the little nasties, not the large.

“Touch or not” is such a non-trivial difference, even conceding that I’ve used hyperbole to establish the point.

Only by skipping over it, and in the process stripping these approaches of that which gives them meaning, does it become possible to arrive at the kind of perspective that you’re advocating. There is more to this than the bare principle, and such moves are far from compelling.

I have a couple vulnerabilities which cause a difficulty saying “no” that would be difficult for an initiator to figure out without asking questions that I would consider intrusive. It’s much easier for me to make my needs known that to expect the other person to figure them out.

And yes, my communication of my needs requires the other person to be sensitive to that communication.

Okay, I see what you’re talking about here. But to what extent are you obligated to make your needs known, and to what extent does the initiator need to be cautious about those needs?

Your later remarks introduce a context of some previous interactions, so I’m guessing that this example is understood in a similar way, and that there’s some idea that those issues are likely to come up in the course of the relationship? In those conditions, then yes, I accept the point as stipulated originally.

However, if the receiver gives their number to someone, takes the call, sets up a date, and drives over, that’s a greater amount of agency.

Agreed. But it’s in the details: as you say later, “In dating, the receptive partner generally has input into the time, place, and length of a date.” But how much input? To the extent that zie steers the setting of time, place and length, then zie has taken initiative. To the extent that zie did not steer it but only responded to suggestions, then zie did not have initiative and “agency” was limited to saying “yes” or “no” – a narrow scope. The same with driving over.

You speak of initiators placing receptive partners into a role or game, but what about receptive partners placing themselves into a role or game? Or what about receptive partners placing the initiators into a role or game?

This seems like an oxymoron. To the extent that someone creates their role or game, or that of others around them, then to that extent they have the initiative, ergo, they are the initiator.

Placing the receptive partner into a role very quickly without giving them a chance to check the nature of the game implies a certain amount of speed. That may be present in a cold approach, same-day pull attempt. But in situations like a longer timeframe (e.g. getting someone’s number, then calling them up for a date) there may well be time for the receiver to check which game is being played, or to flake if they can’t tell.

I disagree about speed. Except inasmuch as the speed from “nothing” to “talking” is instantaneous. The only way to check which game is being played is to play, that is, by interacting with the other person – in terms of speed, I would argue that it’s number of terms (or “strokes”, in Dr Berne’s terminology, although I’m not using games or pastimes in his sense) exchanged, rather than amount of time passed, that matters here. And you only exchange further terms once the phone call is made. Yes, there is more time to consider the data already gathered and decide to flake, but the probability of that is likely to be related to personality traits in various ways, rather than something reliable.

Initiators may act by thrusting a game on a receiver. Alternatively, initiators may invite receivers to join into a game, and believe that if the receiver accepts, then they are sufficiently aware of the rules.

Exactly. This is why I believe scripts to be so problematic. In part, because as far as I can see, an invitation to play is already a part of the game, and choosing to play is another move in the game. Choosing to play might mean “I know this game and am up for it” but it might be, “I think I know what game this is and am up for it”, or “I don’t think I know this game but reckon I can figure out the rules”, or “I don’t know this game but trust you to teach me how to play”, or “I don’t know what game you’re playing, but maybe I will figure out which game it is as we go along”, all of which come with the tacit statement, “I want to play some kind of game with you.”

The belief that, “if the receiver accepts, then they are sufficiently aware of the rules.” is precisely the problem. It presupposes that the receiver knows what game is being invited, and that the acceptance makes it explicit which game the receiver believes is being played.

Receivers can also indicate what sort of initiating they do and don’t like (yes, sometimes this is hard, especially if the initiator isn’t giving any time, but it’s perfectly viable in some situations).

I’m not clear on what this means, and wonder if “initiating” is actually a term we’re using differently. Inasmuch as “indicating” steers the actions of the other party, then it is a form of initiating in itself – it seems to me as though it takes the initiative to prompt certain actions?

If someone gives you a text message inviting you out, it may not be difficult to ignore it, or to make an excuse.

I view text messages as very impersonal – to me, it’s the same as hanging up on an automated cold-call rather than a human cold-caller. This doesn’t feel like a situation of leaving an interaction, it’s just ignoring one more nuisance, like dodging that guy with a clipboard in the street. It’s just not a counter-example that works for me.

I don’t think it’s common for them to knowingly make use of other people’s difficulties in expressing agency.

I agree. But I believe they do it unknowingly, as your previous clause, “I believe that PUAs may make unwarranted assumptions about women’s agency,” implies. I would argue that they make use of the effect without understanding the underlying principles that produce it; and that is the whole problem. It produces the effect that, “PUAs (sometimes mistakenly) believe that women can put on the brakes if they really want to.” and in turn the idea that the responses indicate a level of consent, when in fact that level is not really there.

This seems like an oxymoron. To the extent that someone creates their role or game, or that of others around them, then to that extent they have the initiative, ergo, they are the initiator.

This is why I kept adding the term “proceptive.” Although it has some connotations that I’d rather avoid, it does convey the idea of “initiating from a receptive position” without requiring a shift from receptive to initiating role, and recognizes that initiatory agency isn’t the only form of active agency.

I think that what Hugh is getting at is actually a mix of proceptive and inhibitory initiatory (i.e., ceasing) actions on the part of someone in the receptive position. And it might be the confusion of these two that produces the “put on the brakes” effect that both of you have noted.

But to what extent are you obligated to make your needs known, and to what extent does the initiator need to be cautious about those needs?

That’s the big question, and I don’t know how to answer it besides saying “it depends.” It depends on which needs, on the capabilities of both partners to explain/perceive those needs, and on the ability of each partner to perceive each other’s capabilities to either explain or perceive those needs.

Your later remarks introduce a context of some previous interactions, so I’m guessing that this example is understood in a similar way, and that there’s some idea that those issues are likely to come up in the course of the relationship?

Over a relationship, yes, but also during short interactions with a lot of back-and-forth negotiation and communication. As we’ve noted earlier, sexual communication can involve a lot of reciprocal steps. Mystery once advocated that sex not occur before 7 hours of interaction. 7 hours of constant interaction (over one day or multiple dates) is a lot of time to exchange signals, or to abort the situation (including in a polite way).

To the extent that zie did not steer it but only responded to suggestions, then zie did not have initiative and “agency” was limited to saying “yes” or “no” – a narrow scope.

By “initiator,” I’m referring to the person who started the negotiation. The person taking the call could still end up choosing the location of the date during the negotiation.

If two people have a voluntary negotiation and create a date, we could say that they mutually initiated the date, regardless of who is the “overall initiator,” or who initiated the phone call to arrange the date. Sometimes, a better term might be “catalyzing initiator” and “facilitative initiator”, rather than “initiator” and “receiver.”

The way I’m using the term “initiator” does still allow a lot of agency on the part of the other person (regardless of whether we call the other person “the receiver”, or “proceptive”, or the “co-initiator”), but the other person’s agency is usually just expressed in negotiations started by the initiator, or expressed with plausible deniability. This expression of agency may reduce the responsibility or “fault” accorded to the other person.

I agree. But I believe they do it unknowingly, as your previous clause, “I believe that PUAs may make unwarranted assumptions about women’s agency,” implies. I would argue that they make use of the effect without understanding the underlying principles that produce it; and that is the whole problem.

I think we are agreed on what the problem is. What I am wondering is the level of fault that is accorded to the PUA for different sorts of assumptions about agency, given that many of these assumptions are widely shared in the culture. Even though we think an assumption is unwarranted, it may seem warranted to other people with different backgrounds.

I’ve been busy and I don’t have time to keep up with all the comments (I’ve read them all, I just don’t have the energy to address them all or deal with more feminist-tourettes), so let me address something completely different:

Is there really a social norm for flirting and dating?

Hugh Ristik (sorry that I’ll be using you as the standard example through all of this post, but you kind of represent PUAs on this thread, and you were the one bringing up this argument) seems to believe that the main problem with PUAs is women who don’t know the social norms well enough, such as socially awkward women, aspies, some very young and inexperienced girls, etc., and if they’d just become familiar with the norms, they wouldn’t mistakenly believe PUAs went around being all abusive and bullying them. The problem with PUA isn’t the way it addresses normal gender relations, but rather how it’s not always equipped to deal with a tiny minority of abnormal and socially clueless women/girls.

But if there is a norm for these things, I’ve never experienced it. I’ve heard a lot of people say “This is the norm”, but I’ve never seen them actually be consistent about it. Take Snowdrop’s example of an inexperienced person maybe not knowing that “Do you want to come up for coffee” is code for “I want to fuck you”. From what I could tell, Hugh agreed with the validity of the example and no one else objected to it, so let’s just go with that and assume that’s really the commonly accepted standard.

But she shouldn’t assume…

Anyone remember Elevator-Gate? I read about it, and one of the things that stood out were the many comments about how arrogant Rebecca Watson was in believing that the guy was even hitting on her, instead of merely asking her up for coffee in his room to talk. And how she was vilifying him by reading a sexual agenda into his innocent offer. And you know what? I didn’t see a singly person identifying as PUA, MRA, anti-feminist, etc., object to the attacks. Not even a small “I agree that she’s a worthless misandrist cunt, but inviting someone up for coffee really is one of the most universally recognised ways of telling someone you want be sexual with them, especially if they’re a stranger a stranger and it’s 4 o’clock in the morning”.

Rebecca Watson was punished for correctly (at least according to people here) identifying a common social/sexual norm, and reacting appropriately to it. If she hadn’t interpreted the invitation to come up to strange man’s room for coffee as a sexual invitation, Hugh would categorise her as part of a small minority of socially awkward, aspie, inexperienced, ignorant, etc. women. But the very fact that she was the norm (as acknowledged by Hugh) and interpreted the situation like (Hugh’s version of) a normal person would do, was used to attack her, and the only people coming to her defence were people who’d have sided with her anyway. The fact that she was operating according to the standard script afforded her no protection from blame.

She should have known…

This is not a unique case. Plenty of girls and women I’ve talked to have experienced the same, and there is a lot of material out there about how women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If a man acts like a good deal of rapists and abusers act, a woman decides she’s going to trust him anyway, and he ends up raping or otherwise abusing her, she’s to blame. Most people will say that while she wasn’t the one committing the abuse, she could have done more to protect herself, and Nice Guys(TM) and other types of MRAs will be quick to talk about how women like jerks, and how they encourage abusive behaviours in men by rewarding them with sex.

But if she identifies his behaviour as early signs of a rapist or abuser, and decide to distance herself from him for her own safety… well, that would be the kind of creep-shaming men here are so often complaining about, and in real life, she stands a good chance of being called a bitch, or at least be told that it’s wrong to judge a man on whether or not he makes her skin crawl.

It seems to me like Hugh (together with what is probably a good deal of other PUAs) is suggesting that there is some kind of common standard of behaviour, some kind of script for sexual/gender relations, and as long as women are following this script, they can be reasonably sure it will be acknowledged and it will give them the tools assert a reasonable degree of agency without suffering social retaliations.

Rejecting a guy (and why you’ll never never get it right).

But the thing is, it’s much more complicated than that. When I’ve tried letting guys know indirectly that I’m not interested (such as talking about being a virgin, or how happy I was being single (to guys who were obviously looking to go steady), avoid most contact with them, openly favour other guys over them, being blandly polite, etc.) in order to spare them an open rejection, I’ve been told, especially by other guys, that I’m doing it wrong. Because guys don’t read signals. Guys are not subtle. Guys are direct. Guys prefer honesty. And by assuming he’ll be able to read my girly signals, I’m dragging my alien female standards down over the poor guy’s head, rather than adapting to his male standard of open and rational communication, and this is unreasonable of me.

And of course, every time I’ve tried telling a guy “I’m just not that into you/I don’t want a relationship with you” and he’s kept on being clingy and trying to chase other guys away from me, I’ve been told, often by the same guys, that it’s me doing it wrong again. Because I’m still being friendly to the guy, and thereby sending mixed signals. And guys hone in on these signals, and take them to mean they still got a chance if they just try hard enough. It’s the classic assertion about women’s eyes contradicting their mouths. And apparently, the rule is that men are far better at reading women’s eyes than women are at knowing what their eyes are saying.

The issue isn’t that there are confusing standards about what various signals means, the issue is that the reality of whether men are direct or indirect communicators (and thus the reality I’m supposed to deal with) changes, not according to whether or not the situation calls for direct communication, but rather according to what most conveniently excuses the guy. There is no script, because it is always retroactively assumed that whatever standard you didn’t adhere to in the situation would have been the right one, and you should have known that. And believe me, I’m not the only girl who’s noticed that there’s no way to win in this scenario.

Morphing scripts.

You (men who think there are reasonable standards for expected female behaviour which they know and inform women of) can’t guide us through these situations using any script in the book (except perhaps “Act as if you were his slave, submit to whatever he wants, and never raise a fuss about it”), not even the one you’re currently touting as near-universal, because those scripts are only touted as near-universal to women who are currently experiencing trouble after following a different script. As soon as they use the suggested script and still get in trouble, it was a different script they should have used al along.

Ending up with a guy trying to rip your clothes off after you agreed to go home with him for coffee? Well, he might have stepped a bit out of line, but you really should have known he was expecting you to get sexual with him. Assume a guy is hitting on you because he invites you up for coffee? Well, his choice of time and place for the invitation might have been inappropriate if he’d really hit on you, but he was probably just expressing his completely platonic admiration for you, and you’re engaging in creep-shaming by not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

It’s the same deal as those boys in the study referred to here, who suggested that it was the norm for both men and women to reject each other indirectly, and that everybody knew the standard clichés and were perfectly capable of figuring out when they were being rejected without the need of a direct “NO!”. Except of course that if a woman didn’t say “NO!” directly, she was screwed because there was no possible way a man could figure out that she didn’t want to have sex with him, and even if she did say “NO!” directly, women often said no when they meant yes, so it needed to be a special kind of “NO!”, and really, women should take some responsibility and think of the poor guys who didn’t have a clue what they were doing.

In that conversation, the script was morphing. First the guys said they would expect a woman to understand an indirect rejection as a matter of course, one going as far as saying that it was usually enough to just look at a girl a certain way for her to get the message, and that the same applied the other way around. Then they said that anything less than a clear and direct “NO!” was unacceptable. They went from claiming that girls were usually really good at letting you know when they were not interested, to claiming that girls frequently said no when they meant yes and there was no way for guys to know either way.

For the guys, it was a pretty easy thing to do. Everything they said made perfect sense to them when they said it, they would probably not get in trouble for using the suggested script (I think that’s the big one), and they seemed to think they were being real clear, but how would anyone except other men go about orienting themselves within this script? “It is expected of you that you don’t give direct rejections and don’t use the word “no”. Instead, you’re supposed to rely on these clichés which everyone understands, and make it your assumption that people are familiar with the basics of body language. Also, if you don’t say “NO!” directly, men will have no idea what you’re saying, and even when you say no directly they still wont have a clue unless you use this special version of “NO!” which we wont tell you what is, and you need to take responsibility for that”.

Conclusion (sort of).

I don’t like using the word, but I think it takes a certain amount of privilege to assume that there’s a near-universal script which you can use, and which will not routinely open you up to potential abuse and run you the risk of having people tell you how wrong you are and how you should obviously have used a different script instead. Since women often disappear quickly from here, or refrain from commenting in the first place (can’t imagine why), it is of course hard for me to show that morphing scripts (especially of the type which conveniently morphs into whatever a guy needs it to be at the moment) are a common experience for women. Not to mention that a lot of women have become so used to the morphing that they don’t even register it.

But if Hugh can take it upon himself to represent PUAs and tell us what they’re really about, purely for being the only one here currently identifying as one, I’ll take it upon myself to temporarily represent women here, because I seem to currently be only one identifying as one. And from my own experience as a woman, from women I’ve talked to, articles I’ve read from women discussing the same idea (though I seem to be the first to use this specific wording), studies like the one from YMY, and cases like Rebecca Watson being criticised for making the (correct) assumption she did (from the same type of people who, if she’d said yes to the guy and he’d tried to get physical, would blame her for not making said assumption), I’ll say that I don’t buy the idea of near-universal scripts, at least not for women.

Although you might be the only one currently participating and identifying as a woman, I have to say that, on my part, very much agreed. And that’s the thing with encouraging people to adopt some kind of optimal or normative script as a solution to these kinds of problems, isn’t it? The other ones don’t go away, or get replaced.

It’s more that they stay in reserve, and once the conditions are right, they come right back to the fore. Adopting the new script only works if someone also satisfies the conditions for maintaining it, which often ends up as a heavier price to pay than just not adopting it in the first place.

It’s the sheer fatigue of it all, in addition to the consequences if one fails, which fatigue eventually guarantees.

“Touch or not” is such a non-trivial difference, even conceding that I’ve used hyperbole to establish the point.

in most cases it is, no doubt.

There is more to this than the bare principle

Again, no doubt. Yet it should be noted that it is entirely possible to use a well-intentioned verbal feminist script in a way that’s not compatible with its good intentions or the ideal of conversational awareness that you and Snowdrop advanced in this thread. It is also important to note that it is possible to negotiate consent with touch in a manner that is entirely compatible with ethical standards, and probably more compatible with the appropriate conversational awareness you asked for.

These two points certainly do matter, particularly when it comes to the discoursive assignment of categories like “ethical”.

It is also important to note that it is possible to negotiate consent with touch in a manner that is entirely compatible with ethical standards, and probably more compatible with the appropriate conversational awareness you asked for.

And where did I ask for that, exactly? If you’ll recall, I’ve actually argued much the same point as you’re advancing here — in the past and in several discussions in threads here, in which you’ve participated — in a much more nuanced way, on the basis of things such as the way in which my TLE has affected my use of language: non-verbal communication is often more effective for me than is explicit communication. I’ve also addressed this subject extensively in a number of posts on my own blog.

Further, the subject of misusing well-intentioned standards for nefarious or malicious purposes has also been raised and discussed, here, recently, and not only by me: remember the subject of “tables and swords?”

That’s the point, Sam: you’re rebutting an argument that no one is advancing, in order to target the bare principle, when what is being skipped over is the central issue that’s subject to debate.

when what is being skipped over is the central issue that’s subject to debate.

Well, then, again, I don’t seem to understand what you consider to be the central issue.

And where did I ask for that, exactly?

in the entire thread? Maybe it’s actually useful for me to rephrase what I consider to be your point in my words: “Scripts are dangerous because the limit the range of meaning assigned to signals, they limit the range of signals initiators are looking for, and they also limit the range of admissible interpretations of signals. As such, they limit the range of conversational awareness to the range permissible in the script. People not using scripts are more open to signals and interpretations outside of scripts. In addition, it’s easy to use scripts to rationalize and even justify problematic intent and actions.

remember the subject of “tables and swords?”

I don’t, sorry.

Also, forgot to say thanks for the link to the SOPP (I used the acronym to google for it, maybe that’s why it didn’t work.)

Scripts are dangerous because the limit the range of meaning assigned to signals, they limit the range of signals initiators are looking for, and they also limit the range of admissible interpretations of signals.

As I have repeatedly stated, this is not an issue with scripts. It’s an issue with prominence.

As such, they limit the range of conversational awareness to the range permissible in the script. People not using scripts are more open to signals and interpretations outside of scripts.

This is purely your interpretation; it has nothing to do with what I’ve been arguing, because again, the issue is not with scripts, but with prominence. In fact, this was part of the point of linking to the SEP article in #182, connecting it to your mention of hermeneutics, and naming Gadamer and Ricoeur.

In addition, it’s easy to use scripts to rationalize and even justify problematic intent and actions.

On this point, you’re correct.

With due respect, Sam, and for the most part, I don’t think that you’ve been debating with me. I think that you’ve been debating the objections that might be raised to your perspective, and quoting me in the process.

Over a relationship, yes, but also during short interactions with a lot of back-and-forth negotiation and communication. As we’ve noted earlier, sexual communication can involve a lot of reciprocal steps. Mystery once advocated that sex not occur before 7 hours of interaction. 7 hours of constant interaction (over one day or multiple dates) is a lot of time to exchange signals, or to abort the situation (including in a polite way).

Agreed, re: 7 hours being a lot of data; and it’s in that accumulation of data (or “reciprocal steps”) that communication develops, I think. My point is that in the very early stages of such interaction, communication is necessarily “blocky” compared to the smoother interpretations that are possible later. The risk with depending on a script to fill in the details at that early stage is that it may produce a somewhat different picture from the one actually being transmitted. That makes the first few exchanges much safer if the initial signals are assumed to be potentially ambiguous due to different coding, rather than assuming particular systems or scripts behind them.

I would argue that “short interactions with a lot of back-and-forth negotiation and communication” are a subset of “relationships”. The key point is that there’s expected to be ongoing communication, and it is expected that the particular issues that you have would become relevant to it.

By “initiator,” I’m referring to the person who started the negotiation.

So “initiator” refers only to a single act, and plays no further role, as opposed to being a relevant point further down the line? Such as the kick-off in a football match (any of the Atlantic codes, I don’t know Aussie Rules well enough to say, and I’m inferring a bit for Gaelic as well), rather than being the attacker in fencing (where making the first move is relevant to whose strike is counted as a score, and there’s rules about when that move is considered to be over) or the server in some of the netted court sports, where only the serving team can score at the end of a rally (I forget whether that’s still the rule in volleyball but I think it used to be, and my unreliable brain tells me it’s the rule in badminton, too).

With my discussion of “having the initiative”, the “initiator” would be something different; effectively, I am viewing each new element to be an impulse or signal that either initiates an exchange or completes/responds to it, and that roles thus evolve – sometimes quite rapidly – in the course of a conversation or interaction. Therefore, in the terminology I was trying to develop, the role of initiative-holder is not a constant, but it is relevant throughout the interaction. It is related to agency, but not synonymous with it, and the relation between those is also a matter for debate – possibly, it is the matter of the debate we’ve been having, but not framed in those terms.

I’m not sure how this tallies with Infra’s view of things, but here’s my take:

Scripts are dangerous because the limit the range of meaning assigned to signals, they limit the range of signals initiators are looking for, and they also limit the range of admissible interpretations of signals. As such, they limit the range of conversational awareness to the range permissible in the script.

To me, this misses out the most important words.

It should read something closer to, “Dependence upon a script or limited number of scripts is dangerous, because [rest of text]” It isn’t the script that is dangerous, but the way that it’s used. Depending on a script to give you the “right” answer is problematic, because it might not be the right tool for the job.

Earlier in the thread, you emphasized the dangers of women being surprised by advances they weren’t suspecting. That got me thinking about ways to reduce that surprise, and whether that burden should fall on the women involved, or on the culture, on men who initiate (making PUAs bad people if they use tactics that might result in surprise, such as active disinterest).

I came to the conclusion that cultural knowledge of norms and scripts can potentially help people (either initiators, or people receiving advances) make better predictions about the behavior and intentions of others and reduce surprise or miscommunication. There are a bunch of things, however, that I have not claimed (or that I retract, if I’ve implied them):

– That norms and scripts are universal, consistent, or acted out in a predictable way.
– That cultural norms and scripts are ideal.
– That women or men “should” know about certain norms, and that knowledge of them is easy or convenient to attain.
– That people take responsibility for every sort of mishap if they enter a situation where they aren’t aware of the norms.

Should there be a responsibility on people receiving advances to educate themselves about the norms and thought processes that initiators are using? Should they be trying to head off predictable misunderstandings or miscommunication by the initiator? Should the culture be educating them?

I’ve been trying to raise those questions, because I am tired of how “ethics” and “responsibility” are words that seem to apply solely to initiators (or men) in feminist discussions of sexual ethics, even here.

Nevertheless, I don’t feel equipped to answer those questions (on the ethical responsibilities of receptive partners, or of the culture to educate them) by myself, which is exactly why I am attempting to discuss them in a forum of intelligent people with different attitudes and experiences to mine.

But if Hugh can take it upon himself to represent PUAs and tell us what they’re really about, purely for being the only one here currently identifying as one

I don’t identify as a “pickup artist” or PUA. I’ve mentioned that here before. It probably won’t surprise you that I don’t think you’ve accurately characterized my views, and that I feel you are conflating my views with the views of other people you disagree with.

It’s unfortunate that by attempting to discuss the potential responsibilities of people receiving advances, you think that I’m willing to blame for miscommunication in specific situations. It’s unfortunate that you think I’m supporting specific assumptions by initiators, including some that I have disclaimed. I don’t know how I avoid this sort of misinterpretation.

Actually, most of the problematic situations you raise are ones that I also have problems with.

Take Snowdrop’s example of an inexperienced person maybe not knowing that “Do you want to come up for coffee” is code for “I want to fuck you”. From what I could tell, Hugh agreed with the validity of the example and no one else objected to it, so let’s just go with that and assume that’s really the commonly accepted standard.

When I talk about the usefulness about giving/accepting a coffee invitation, I do not mean that it communicates consent to sex. You can’t invite someone in for coffee, and then assume that you have consent to caveman them once you get in the door. Rather, the apartment invitation is used to communicate openness to the non-guaranteed possibility of mutual sexual escalation in the apartment that might eventually involve sex if things go well.

Back to you:

I read about it, and one of the things that stood out were the many comments about how arrogant Rebecca Watson was in believing that the guy was even hitting on her, instead of merely asking her up for coffee in his room to talk. And how she was vilifying him by reading a sexual agenda into his innocent offer.

That situation was made more complicated because ElevatorGuy disclaimed sexual intent. If he hadn’t then, it would have been reasonable for Rebecca Watson to believe that he did have sexual intent.

If ElevatorGuy had been better educated about social norms, then perhaps he would have known that an elevator approach late at night would not be expected or taken well. As I’ve already observed, part of the potential use of scripts is so that initiators can make educated guesses about what the receiver is expecting, or not expecting.

If a man acts like a good deal of rapists and abusers act, a woman decides she’s going to trust him anyway, and he ends up raping or otherwise abusing her, she’s to blame.

Some people think like this. I don’t agree with them. Scripts and norms don’t trump “no means no,” which is it’s own script/norm. Yes, some PUAs think that “token resistance” can be present, because they believe that it’s the norm. It may well be a minority norm, but it’s not a majority norm. Consequently, it is not reasonable for PUAs to believe that women are likely to expect the PUAs to treat the “no” as “token resistance” (even though some PUA gurus have deluded PUAs into thinking that it is reasonable), and it isn’t reasonable to blame her.

Most people will say that while she wasn’t the one committing the abuse, she could have done more to protect herself

If we are talking about abuse, then I would not want to place responsibility on the abused person to protect themselves (even if they could have taken actions to do). If we are talking about miscommunication that occurs with positive intentions, then there may be responsibility on both people.

But if she identifies his behaviour as early signs of a rapist or abuser, and decide to distance herself from him for her own safety… well, that would be the kind of creep-shaming men here are so often complaining about, and in real life, she stands a good chance of being called a bitch, or at least be told that it’s wrong to judge a man on whether or not he makes her skin crawl.

Ending up with a guy trying to rip your clothes off after you agreed to go home with him for coffee? Well, he might have stepped a bit out of line, but you really should have known he was expecting you to get sexual with him.

No, you shouldn’t have been expected to know that. It’s not the norm. If some people think it is, they are wrong.

It’s the same deal as those boys in the study referred to here, who suggested that it was the norm for both men and women to reject each other indirectly

Also, if you don’t say “NO!” directly, men will have no idea what you’re saying, and even when you say no directly they still wont have a clue unless you use this special version of “NO!” which we wont tell you what is, and you need to take responsibility for that”.

As I mentioned previously, I don’t agree with disregarding “no,” nor do think it’s consistent with majority norms. In this comment, I said:

I am opposed to scripts that inhibit the opportunity of receivers to communicate non-consent, or that ignore such communication. The kind of scripts I like help people predict what the other person might do next.

You may well be correct that some people do place women in a double bind for communicating non-consent, where they are criticized regardless of how they do or don’t express non-consent. The unfairness of this double bind does not mean that the responsibility and agency of women (or other people receiving sexual advances) for sexual communication is trivial, or that receivers of advances would not benefit from knowledge of cultural norms for sexual communication. Even if receivers do have responsibilities in communication, it would not surprise me if many claims about their responsibilities are wrong or unfair.

I’m not sure that there was the kind of misunderstanding regarding the coffee example that you’re asserting; if anything, the “I want to fuck you” interpretation could be read as blatant or as subtle, ranging from cavemanning to suggestion. The only consistent theme would be “one of the most universally recognised ways of telling someone you want be sexual with them,” which is how AB phrased it in the hypothetical response.

With regard to this:

That situation was made more complicated because ElevatorGuy disclaimed sexual intent.

Often, that’s a red flag, especially in combination with circumstances like those involved with Rebecca Watson’s story: what it tends to suggest is that the individual knows that their actions could be taken the wrong way, but decided to proceed, regardless.

And that, further, would suggest that ElevatorGuy was aware of social norms, and chose to disregard them. Absent the other circumstances, there might be some basis for a different interpretation, when it comes to disclaiming of sexual intent; but we’re dealing with a combination.

General rejection wasn’t what AB was referring to, though: the subject was rejecting someone early on, because their behavior seemed indicative of being a rapist or an abuser. That’s a specific type of case, and it’s one where objections regarding creep-shaming often are, and have been, raised, in threads here and elsewhere, including in the recent Feministe discussion referenced upthread. A substantial number of the comments there were directed at making the point that “if it comes to a choice between our safety and your feelings, we have a right to make our safety the priority,” and the fact that it had to be argued as strongly as it did, and as repeatedly, speaks to AB’s.

It may be that you don’t agree with a number of the responses that AB mentioned, and that you wouldn’t hold to a number of the interpretations that AB references; it may be that you think that a number of these things are wrong. But I’d say that’s the point: because of that, and because encountering these things doesn’t inform your life in the way that it does with women, they don’t go far enough in informing your solutions, either.

The question is whether or not you’ve taken the steps to bridge that gap, before asking people to cross it.

@AB Thank you for sharing your perspective. There’s a lot in your post I would like to respond to, and it is super late here, so I will have to focus on a very narrow portion of it: the ElevatorGate incident.

I must disclaim: before now, I was completely unfamiliar with the incident, so I can not speak to how I would have reacted if I had heard about it before reading your post. For those, like myself, previously unfamiliar with the incident, I found this page particularly helpful with a summary and links to “primary sources”: Elevator Gate

Listening to her original speech at the conference, I find myself agreeing with almost everything she says (she claims that Paula “does not care about sexism” when all that’s really clear is that Paula does not believe that sexism is major reason why women are not more active in the atheist community). She makes very well reasoned points and is clearly very intelligent. I then listened to the video where she explains the elevator incident. Again, I find myself nodding along – she very tactfully explains that his behavior was inappropriate. I’m with her here.

for the men (and women) who are behaving in sexist and destructive ways, I hope that pointing it out to them has the effect of making them consider their actions and stop being sexist and damaging.

Correct me if wrong: did she just claim that elevator guy was acting “sexist and damaging” because he politely asked her if she wanted to have sex after she had said she was tired?

What she says further on seems to further imply this:

[Critics of my video forget] the difference between sexual attraction and sexual objectification. The former is great – be attracted to people! Flirt, have fun, make friends, have sex, meet the love of your life, whatever floats your boat. But the latter involves dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the “object” in question.

From the information that she has provided, I can not support the conclusion that he has, with certainty, acted in a sexist, and sexually objectifying manner.

I can agree that he acted in a manner that was: Disturbing, inappropriate, socially incompetent, poorly timed, and lacking in cultural awareness. I do not condone his approaching her in the elevator, it was a bad idea.

Was it sexist and sexually objectifying? Maybe… but I’m skeptical of that. First and foremost, because it appears that he immediately respected her “No,” and did not try to persist when she made her feelings clear.

This is my issue with “creep shaming”: that there is no distinction made, nor any effort to distinguish attempted, between a “creep” who is unintentionally socially incompetent, and a “creep” who is intentionally predatory. Frankly, I find her implication that elevator guy was intentionally disregarding her feelings as slightly ableist.

Going back to what Infra said about not making assumptions about another person’s capabilities, and what Sam said about that going both ways: Watson makes the assumption that because, in a bar setting, she announced that she was tired in his presence, that elevator guy not only heard her, but understood that she meant she had no interest in sex despite being tired.

First of all, I find it very hard to hear people in bars, and even if I do, I sometimes find it difficult to process what they said. For the sake of argument though, let’s assume that he heard her say she was tired, and correctly processed that she meant she was heading to bed. It’s very possible that he had been waiting for a moment to talk to her outside of the group and, in his excitement that the opportunity arrived, completely forgot that she just said she was tired (again, when I’m around someone I’m attracted to, I can easily forget something they just said in my nervousness).

Again, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that he did not forget: she takes for granted that he understands her statement of “I’m tired” to mean “I am tired and completely un-open to the possibility of other activities”. In my experience, it’s not uncommon for people to decide that they are tired, leave one activity, and then decide to take up another activity instead of sleep because it appeals to them.

I could wholeheartedly endorse her saying “these actions make me feel sexually objectified, and the consequences are damaging along gendered lines” This statement still centers her feelings, and acknowledges the negative consequences of his actions, but they do not presume malicious intent or guilt on his part. One claims that elevator guy is, with certainty, a “bad person”, while the other addresses problematic behavior without demonizing potentially well-meaning individuals.

But I’d say that’s the point: because of that, and because encountering these things doesn’t inform your life in the way that it does with women, they don’t go far enough in informing your solutions, either.

The question is whether or not you’ve taken the steps to bridge that gap, before asking people to cross it.

I think that’s a very good phrasing of the problem. How can one ever *know* (subjectively, ex-ante) whether the steps have been taken when the only admissible criterion is someone else’s epistemic privilege? One cannot. And that’s a problem – if you assume that subjective epistemic privilege precludes the establishment of a mutually accssible reality that can help identify the necessary steps, if thus even emphatic identification is impossible and taking of the (subjectively appropriate) steps comes down to luck, taking them cannot be a useful indicator of moral behaviour.

In regards to Elevator-Gate, I agree that you can invite people up for coffee without a sexual agenda. Just last week, I was sitting in a restaurant in Copenhagen with a married couple, with a noisy gay pride parade outside, and after dinner, they suggested we found a bar in a more quiet area or went back to their place for tea (I don’t drink coffee). But the difference here, besides the fact that they were married and knew I had a boyfriend, that none of us had said anything about open relationships, and that they weren’t total strangers, is that I’m also pretty sure they would have made the exact same offer to a male friend.

In fact, the wife gave a pretty good example of this kind of thinking. She was about to get a blind student in her class, so she’d done some research and gone out and met some blind people to better understand. She was talking about personal boundaries, in regards to blind people needing to touch others to ‘see’ them, and said (quoting from memory):

“Some of the young men will say that they need to touch, not only your face, but your whole body to get an idea of your height and build. They say that it’s necessary to feel up your torso, including letting their hands roam over your breasts. And that’s legitimate enough if it helps them make a better assessment of how you look. But the thing is, they never do that to the teacher in her 60s, and they don’t do it to any men either. That’s not people compensating for a disability, that’s just young guys abusing their disability to get to grope girls who feel obliged to put up with it”.

I see the same with certain (overwhelmingly self-diagnosed) aspies. That’s people with Asperger’s syndrome btw. They’re always talking about how lonely they are because they’re socially awkward, and/or normal people don’t understand their aspie way of socialising and therefore unfairly avoid them, as if it was a huge social justice issue. It’s almost always guys, and their complaints usually take the form of some variation of “Just because a guy seems creepy and you don’t want to talk him, it doesn’t mean you’re right, he could be one of us and you should give him a chance. He’s probably not even hitting on you in the first place, a lot of us just want some basic human contact”.

But for some reason, that “basic human contact” almost inevitably turns out to mean “contact with pretty girls”. They’ll readily talk about that 17 year old blonde who unjustly turned away the moment they approached, but they never talk about what happens when they approach that 68 year old (woman or man) who wants to talk to them about Jesus, even though these people seem to love talking to strangers. In fact, both religious people and the elderly are good choices for casual conversations, and especially in case of the latter, you can do a good deed at the same time, because a lot of elderly people are just as lonely and starved for company as these aspie guys claim they are. One of my friends was asked by a homeless guy to buy the homeless people’s magazine to support their cause, and she said “OK, on one condition. You have to tell me your life story and how you ended up on the street”. She got a really great conversation out of it, and expanded many of her horizons in the process.

There are lots of ways to engage with strangers that are unlikely to make you seem like a creep. If your problem really is loneliness and starving for platonic company, going after the group least likely to react favourably to being approached by strange guys (very young, conventionally attractive girls/women who have made no attempt at approaching you or inviting you to approach) is counter-productive. In fact, if you’re really as sensitive to rejection as you claim,socialising with that group should be your last priority. But of course, non-gendered/non-sexual/non-romantic interaction is not really their goal, and their reluctance to seek out ‘platonic’ relations with people not fitting their sexual preference is proof of that.

It’s the same with elevator guys. How often have you, as a man, been invited up for coffee by a strange man you met less ½ a minute ago? In fact, how often do strange men even come up to you to say hello? In this context, men are identical to women in all the ways that count. They can be just as intelligent, funny, interesting, and knowledgeable about atheism, and most of them can talk. If it’s not about sex or gender, how come the men in the atheist community don’t come forward with their stories about being approached by strange men who wanted to get them alone, or talk about how they approached lone strange men in order to take them to their hotel room in the middle of the night, so they could show Rebecca Watson how normal and non-sexual it was?

There must have been thousands of men who heard or read Watson’s remark and felt compelled to tell her she was wrong, what are the odds that not a single one of them have a story or two about a similar incident? Richard Dawkins who also commented on the case is a much bigger star in the atheist community than Watson is, so he should have had dozens of examples of strange men approaching him at night and immediately wanting to be alone with him. Especially since the atheist community seems to be heavily male-dominated, with men being afforded much higher status and many members expressing the belief that men are superior to women, while the people who’re on the “women’s side” are usually content with asserting that the sexes are equal.

The greater number of men in the atheist community should in itself result in a higher number of men getting invited up for coffee at night by strange men they met a few seconds ago. The many men who believe their sex is more intelligent and have more relevant things to say than women should drive that number up even further, since they’d probably be more interested in platonic conversations with other men. The greater amount of male speakers and celebrities should drive the number through the roof. And yet, among a much greater amount of male speakers, most of whom are probably more respected and admired than her, among a population of people who on average are more likely to be interested in what men have to say, the woman just happens to be the only one ending up in this situation? Completely at random?

Sorry, but if a man is acting like elevator guy towards women, but not towards men, it’s no longer platonic, and he’s no longer addressing her, he’s addressing her vagina. Pardon me for being so frank, but the thing a lot of men seem to ignore that men are always saying crap like that. “Don’t take this the wrong way” tends to really mean “I’m about to hit on you, but I don’t want you to get defensive” roughly as often as “Do you want to come up for coffee” really means “I want to be sexual with you”. And I have no doubt that if 90+% of the guys slamming Rebecca Watson for her reaction had been in the same situation, they would have perceived it as a case of a creepy gay guy hitting on them, and I doubt their reaction would have been half as gracious as hers.

yeah, well, there’s no way around it either, really. In the marxist case, the problem was bad theory, in this case we have the problem that a better theory would require a betazoid upgrade of human biology ;).

“Everything in moderation” may seem like a useful heuristing approach to deal with reality, but it doesn’t solve the problem.

And since AB brought the elevator case back to the discussion, I believe that epistemic privilege is also at the root of the elevator incident. Epistemic privilege becomes problematic when one perspective is given automatic preference over the other (or, is attempting to create a situation in which it is given automatic preference).

I think it is absurd to claim the guy didn’t know what he was doing, although, of course, that’s technically possible, but in my opinion, the problem discussed was really about one perspective claiming definitional authority about the shared reality and the other one subsquently objecting to such an appropriation attempt.

This appears to be about the difference Palleon mentions in his last paragraph: between *feeling* creeped out and claiming someone *is* creepy. I don’t think Ms Watson or any other woman should be concerned with such differences in a specfic situation in which they feel creeped out, but for a discussion about what happened, like the one ensuing after her video, that is a non-trivial distinction and one that is rarely made those assigning blame, which, then, leads to a conflict in which one side is opposing the other side’s appropriation of definitional power with respect to what “objectively” happened (and the according allocation of right, wrong, and blame). That’s what, I believe, the elevator incident, and most other discussions of this kind are really about.

Sorry, but if a man is acting like elevator guy towards women, but not towards men, it’s no longer platonic, and he’s no longer addressing her, he’s addressing her vagina.

Well, somehow I have a feeling that, in this case, that’s actually an accurate description of what happened, but I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that it’s impossible to address a woman as a woman (even while being interested in her vagina).

And I have no doubt that if 90+% of the guys slamming Rebecca Watson for her reaction had been in the same situation, they would have perceived it as a case of a creepy gay guy hitting on them, and I doubt their reaction would have been half as gracious as hers.

Well, I don’t know. I think 90% is a bit high, but yeah, far too few guys make that experience. Just as too few women know what it’s like to be practically forced to initiate.

But for some reason, that “basic human contact” almost inevitably turns out to mean “contact with pretty girls”.

Something I don’t really understand is how derogatory remarks about guys’ apparent or alleged interest in “pretty girls” almost always make their way into discussions about things that I believe would be affecting women and men of all sorts of visual appearance similarly.

I get what you’re saying. I’m just saying that there are options other than your perspective, and that those other options address the problem. It’s continuing to insist that this is wholly an issue of epistemic privilege that blocks them off, and makes the situation look unresolvable.

As for the distinction between feeling creeped out and someone being creepy, AB already went into ways of determining that: whether someone’s actions are selective to particular groups, or consistent across groups, for example. (I didn’t want to write a response to Pellaeon’s comment until after AB had.) In a way, this goes to a point that Pellaeon highlighted, but IMO, wrongly assigned: the use of the attraction/objectification theory. That’s useful for structural analysis, and for identifying clearly predatory behavior; but for the kind of situation that Watson went through, the kind of analysis that AB was using is more useful, and more appropriate to the phenomenon.

(Of course, I do think that the interpretation of these points was complicated by the heat of the subject: in context, Watson’s reference to that theory was in response to a specific sentence in Stef McGraw’s post, not to critics in general, and the “sexist and destructive” comment was a reframing of stclairose’s criticism, where the phrase originally occurred, apparently as a self-correction to what Watson saw as an overly placating 2 am response to stclairose’s video.)

WRT your responses to AB:

Well, I don’t know. I think 90% is a bit high, but yeah, far too few guys make that experience. Just as too few women know what it’s like to be practically forced to initiate.

You’re coming dangerously close to appropriating homophobia in order to argue for gender equity in approaching.

Maybe you’ve forgotten that there’s a queer guy in the room, and one who would be more than glad to educate you on why that is an incredibly bad idea.

And as a note, this

But for some reason, that “basic human contact” almost inevitably turns out to mean “contact with pretty girls”.

isn’t a derogatory remark. It’s observing that “basic human contact” might be the way in which things are phrased, but in the way things play out, that contact tends to be directed toward younger, conventionally attractive women. The only thing that claiming that this is derogatory does is portray it as prejudicial, so as to invalidate the observation.

And it does so simply on the basis of assertion, whereas AB provided supporting argument.

Earlier in the thread, you emphasized the dangers of women being surprised by advances they weren’t suspecting. That got me thinking about ways to reduce that surprise, and whether that burden should fall on the women involved, or on the culture, on men who initiate (making PUAs bad people if they use tactics that might result in surprise, such as active disinterest).

I came to the conclusion that cultural knowledge of norms and scripts can potentially help people (either initiators, or people receiving advances) make better predictions about the behavior and intentions of others and reduce surprise or miscommunication.

The issue is that knowing these scripts wont necessarily cause women to interpret the actions of PUAs the way you want to to. First of all because a not insignificant number of men actually do employ PUA-like tactics against women out of honest dislike (though thinking about it, always seeing compliments and fond sexual appreciation when men act like they’re not interested or don’t care for you might actually give you a happier life, but it’s hard to implement when you know it’s not true), and secondly because I think a lot of PUAs don’t operate according to the norms you seem to assume.

Should there be a responsibility on people receiving advances to educate themselves about the norms and thought processes that initiators are using? Should they be trying to head off predictable misunderstandings or miscommunication by the initiator? Should the culture be educating them?

I’ve been trying to raise those questions, because I am tired of how “ethics” and “responsibility” are words that seem to apply solely to initiators (or men) in feminist discussions of sexual ethics, even here.

Nevertheless, I don’t feel equipped to answer those questions (on the ethical responsibilities of receptive partners, or of the culture to educate them) by myself, which is exactly why I am attempting to discuss them in a forum of intelligent people with different attitudes and experiences to mine.

That might be the issue. You’re insinuating that people who get hurt by PUA tactics should, in general, take more responsibility and educate themselves to think and act differently, but you’re not giving people any concrete examples of where the receiving parties are supposed to do things differently, let alone what they’re supposed to do. It sounds suspiciously like “I’m sure this unpleasant situation of a man hurting a woman and/or crossing her personal boundaries must at least in some way be her fault as much as his. I just can’t figure out where.”

I don’t identify as a “pickup artist” or PUA. I’ve mentioned that here before. It probably won’t surprise you that I don’t think you’ve accurately characterized my views, and that I feel you are conflating my views with the views of other people you disagree with.

OK. But you’re definitely the one here who’ve talked the most about using PUA techniques (with the possible exception of Sam) and being familiar with teh Seduction Community. For instance, you said with a pretty high degree of certainty that techniques like lying about where you’re taking a target is uncommon in the SC, whereas Clarisse’s experience as a target was that it happened to her literally within hours of entering the scene. That’s just one example of you arguing more from the perspective of a PUA rather than a target.

Not saying it’s always a bad thing, just that experience-wise, you seem very heavy on the side of “approaching a target using PUA” and not “being a target designated for approach by PUA”. Since I seem to be the only possible PUA target currently on this thread, that seems to make my perspective the obvious counter to yours.

It’s unfortunate that by attempting to discuss the potential responsibilities of people receiving advances, you think that I’m willing to blame for miscommunication in specific situations. It’s unfortunate that you think I’m supporting specific assumptions by initiators, including some that I have disclaimed. I don’t know how I avoid this sort of misinterpretation.

Actually, it’s your lack of specific assumptions that’s problematic here. It’s that in a debate about how specific actions on behalf of initiators are/can be dishonest, hurtful, and unconstructive, you keep alluding to some vague equal responsibility on part of the targets, and how some mysterious mainstream women have this undefined understanding of some unknown social norms which might allow them to know about the intentions of a PUA in advance.

When I talk about the usefulness about giving/accepting a coffee invitation, I do not mean that it communicates consent to sex. You can’t invite someone in for coffee, and then assume that you have consent to caveman them once you get in the door. Rather, the apartment invitation is used to communicate openness to the non-guaranteed possibility of mutual sexual escalation in the apartment that might eventually involve sex if things go well.

As Infra said, my suggestion was “one of the most universally recognised ways of telling someone you want to be sexual with them” not “automatic consent to sex”. But the point was more that this assumption of a commonly accepted script for what “Do you want to go up for coffee?” means isn’t necessarily correct, and that women who follow this script will often get it wrong.

That situation was made more complicated because ElevatorGuy disclaimed sexual intent. If he hadn’t then, it would have been reasonable for Rebecca Watson to believe that he did have sexual intent.

See my answer to that. It is, unfortunately, no more of a valid excuse than the rapist in the OP saying that he’s just doing what women really want (which is a common claim for PUAs to routinely inject into pretty much all their statements about picking up women, seemingly as a matter of course. I believe you’ve even done it more than once). It’s about as useful an indicator of a man’s sexual motives as a polite “Nice to meet you/How are you doing?” is an indicator of the speaker’s true interest in the person they’re greeting. When all men are saying it, it becomes as meaningful as if no men were saying it.

Perhaps it would be easier if men would share some of the many examples between men where this kind of socialising happens without a sexual context, but as long as these things seem to almost exclusively happen to women, it’s really hard (and quite naïve) to assume there’s no sexual aspect in it, regardless of which standard cliché the guy is using to make it seem otherwise.

If ElevatorGuy had been better educated about social norms, then perhaps he would have known that an elevator approach late at night would not be expected or taken well. As I’ve already observed, part of the potential use of scripts is so that initiators can make educated guesses about what the receiver is expecting, or not expecting.

The issue is that in a way, he most likely was. Look at all the men who’re defending him. Not just saying that it was inconsiderate and ignorant but not necessarily malicious, but saying that his behaviour was completely OK and well within the range of normalcy. Whether he knew it or not, he was following a very common script which is accepted by lots of people. Granted, the script seems to be more accepted by men than by women, and it is probably a morphing script where “She assumed he was hitting on her just for asking her up for coffee? How dare she!?!” can conveniently turn into “She went to a strange man’s hotel room in the middle of the night without expecting anything sexual? How stupid can she be!?!” at a moment’s notice. But that’s fairly standard for many common social norms.

Imo, that’s the main issue with Elevator-Gate. Not that a single clueless guy approached a woman in a way that was slightly obnoxious and mildly threatening, but that Watson’s initial extremely fair remark of “Guys, don’t do that” stirred up the shitstorm it did. That indicates either that the guy was not clueless at all, but was instead following a script commonly approved by men (which they don’t want women to change), or that morphing scripts are being used to justify a man’s behaviour by retroactively changing the standards. Or both.

Some people think like this. I don’t agree with them. Scripts and norms don’t trump “no means no,” which is it’s own script/norm. Yes, some PUAs think that “token resistance” can be present, because they believe that it’s the norm. It may well be a minority norm, but it’s not a majority norm. Consequently, it is not reasonable for PUAs to believe that women are likely to expect the PUAs to treat the “no” as “token resistance” (even though some PUA gurus have deluded PUAs into thinking that it is reasonable), and it isn’t reasonable to blame her.

As Infra said, I’m not talking about men ignoring a no. I’m talking about distancing yourself from someone in advance, not because they’ve done anything ‘legitimately’ wrong, but because their behaviour indicates that they’re likely to be abusive in some way. Like PUAs.

Here’s the issue though. Due to the whole morphing scripts thing I talked about earlier, it’s often almost impossible to get out without clearly stepping outside the script he’s imposing on you. Not to mention that most of the time, when a guy ignores the first signals that you want to be left alone (the kind which guys are not supposed to understand), you can be pretty sure he’ll ignore the rest. And the more times you try, the harder it gets, so it’s often tempting to skip right to the rude rejection (I’ve never done it, but I’ve often wished I did).

But again, I’m not talking about how a rejection is performed, but why. A lot of guys on the websites you support have compared feeling unsafe around a man before having adequate proof that he’s definitely dangerous to the current racism directed at black men at best, and to the Jim Crow laws at worst. At NSWATM, I even learned my normal body language and my standards for personal space were misandrist according to posters there (part of the reason I don’t post as often any more). At this point, we’re not talking about rejections but about feelings – is it OK to feel uncomfortable around a guy who acts like an abuser or rapist even though you have no definitive proof that he is an abuser or rapist?

No, you shouldn’t have been expected to know that. It’s not the norm. If some people think it is, they are wrong.

I think it’s a very common norm that once you agree to go to the room of a guy you just met, you’re at least agreeing to a sexual escalation of some sorts. For example, the American Cosmopolitan magazine had an article on ‘Grey Rape’ which included these examples (as quoted by Cliff Pervocracy, highlights mine):

After the dance, they went to Kevin’s room and, eventually, started making out. She told him flat out that she didn’t want it to proceed to sex, and he said okay. But in a few minutes, he had pushed her down on the couch and positioned himself on top of her. “No. Stop,” she said softly — too softly, she later told herself. When he ignored her and entered her anyway, she tensed up and tried to go numb until it was over.
[different story]
They had a few more drinks at the hotel bar, and then he asked if she wanted to go to his hotel room to see some family photos. She went to his room but after a few minutes said she needed to go. He pinned her on the bed and, according to Shari, sexually assaulted her. She struggled with him and managed to escape. Shari reported the incident to police but didn’t press charges.

These are among the most rapey examples of rape you can possible get. No alcohol or ‘ambiguous’ lack of communication. The victims clearly said they didn’t want sex/wanted to go, and the rapists used physical force to get them to comply. Even a certain Todd Akin should have to admit it was ‘legitimate rape’. And yet according to Cosmo, these experiences are

something that is becoming so common, it has earned its own moniker: gray rape. It refers to sex that falls somewhere between consent and denial and is even more confusing than date rape because often both parties are unsure of who wanted what.
[snip]
Sarah Belanger, 28, a communications specialist who works in Boston, has been trying to find a middle ground in her own life. “If you make the choice to leave the bar with the guy, then you are also creating the opportunity for something to go wrong,” she says. “I think that is the point that needs to be driven home to everyone who participates in the hookup culture. Yes, you can practice safe sex. Yes, you can have casual sex without strings. But this behavior carries a risk.”

And please don’t pull the old crap about women (i.e. certain types of women’s magazines) being the most/only sexist ones. Social conservatives are just as ready to try to excuse these things. Religious conservatives are worse, if possible. Atheists whose view of gender roles are similar to that of social and religious conservatives (with pop evolutionary psychology replacing religion) aren’t much better. Neither are the kind of guys who’d be called part of the lad-culture in England, ‘boy-asses’ in Denmark, and probably something akin to fratboy jerks in the USA. And don’t get me started on MRAs and other misogynists. Also, PUAs.

You might not like it, and I can assure you I don’t either, but the attitude of “What was she expecting?” is depressingly common, and it’s something all women who’re at risk (i.e. women who would conceivably agree to go to a guy’s room) have to incorporate into their scripts. Telling yourself that it’s not the norm doesn’t get you out of dealing with the many people for whom it is.

Quoting you again:

I think that study is very limited, for reasons I mentioned here.

I was focussing more on the O’Byrne, Hansen & Rapley (2008) study, which was referred to in that post too. I realise it was initially brought up in a different post, the one I linked to was just the one I remembered the title of. Sorry for that. Anyway, the O’Byrne, Hansen & Rapley (2008) study is specifically asking about sexual communication (“you’re back at your house with a girl (.) it’s looking like sex is on the cards for whatever reason you really don’t want to have sex with her tonight (.) how do you let her know”), and the point is that the suggested norms of sexual communication are considerably different from the suggested norms presented when the discussion is about rape.

It’s not so much that there are different standards for social and sexual communication, it’s that there are different standards for normal sexual communication and the kind of communication you’re expected to use to avoid rape and other forms of abuse. So basically, a woman being hit on by a man needs to have two different modes of communication, sex-mode and (anti)rape-mode, depending on whether or not the man is likely to be a rapist. If he’s not, she’s supposed to be in sex-mode and use the standard norms, but if he is, she needs to be in immediate rape-mode. But if she gets into rape-mode too early, or with a guy who isn’t a rapist, she’s misandrist or an unreasonable bitch, depending on whether the person judging is an MRA or a normal person.

You may well be correct that some people do place women in a double bind for communicating non-consent, where they are criticized regardless of how they do or don’t express non-consent. The unfairness of this double bind does not mean that the responsibility and agency of women (or other people receiving sexual advances) for sexual communication is trivial, or that receivers of advances would not benefit from knowledge of cultural norms for sexual communication. Even if receivers do have responsibilities in communication, it would not surprise me if many claims about their responsibilities are wrong or unfair.

Actually, sometimes it’s the other way around. To take a really obvious example, the types of women who read Cosmo (and are probably a lot closer to the normative women you’re always talking about as a contrast to Clarisse, feminists, and me) are more likely to believe that if they agree to go to a guy’s room and he pins them down and have sex with them after they’ve said they don’t want to, they have to take some of the blame, because they were implicitly giving some kind of consent by coming to his room. Having knowledge of that cultural norm can actually make them worse off than women who’re ignorant of it.

Or rather, the knowledge of “This is a common cultural norm of sexual communication” ought to be supplemented with “And this common cultural norm is sick and wrong, people who use it as an excuse to have sex with others deserve to be sent to jail, and the fact that so few of them are is a major social justice issue” in order to work properly.

And that’s probably my major problem with most PUAs. They take defect scripts, sexist scripts, morphing scripts (of the kind that always morph into it not being the guy’s fault), etc. and exploit the hell out of them, while refusing to acknowledge the existence/validity of the scripts that a woman might be going by, and all the time sprouting the same drivel about how much power women have, how they’re just adapting to what women want, and how women who speak out against them don’t count.

Well, somehow I have a feeling that, in this case, that’s actually an accurate description of what happened, but I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that it’s impossible to address a woman as a woman (even while being interested in her vagina).

No matter what, he shouldn’t claim he was addressing her as a person if he wasn’t. And if this kind of behaviour is almost unheard of between straight men, it’s probably because it’s not gender-neutral or platonic.

Something I don’t really understand is how derogatory remarks about guys’ apparent or alleged interest in “pretty girls” almost always make their way into discussions about things that I believe would be affecting women and men of all sorts of visual appearance similarly.

I’m feeling an urge to make a remark about how often derogatory remarks about feminism tend to make their way into your posts about unrelated subjects right now, but instead, I’d like you to read Infra’s response again. And for the record, just like Infra, I get the feeling you’re not actually addressing the arguments laid forth, but have been debating the objections that might be raised to your perspective (often in completely different debates, such as now).

It is very simple: If a blind man claims that he would like to non-sexually feel up people’s bodies to get an idea about how they look, and yet only wants to touch members of the gender and age-group to which he’s sexually attracted, it is reasonable to conclude that his claim about the touch being non-sexual is false.

If an allegedly socially awkward/aspie man claims that he’s starved for non-sexual human company, and that it is wrong for people to read a sexual intention into it when he approaches them and creeps them out, and yet only approaches members of the gender and age-group he’s sexually attracted to, it is reasonable to conclude that his claim about wanting non-sexual human contact is false.

If a doctor claims that all patients regardless of gender need to be naked for certain examinations, and yet only applies this to patients who’re members of the sex and age-group the doctor is sexually attracted to, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim about the universal necessity of the nudity is false.

And if the elevator guys of the world claim their actions are without any sexual motivation, but reality shows that they only approach members of the gender and age-group they’re sexually attracted to, it is reasonable to assume that their claim about lacking sexual motivations is false.

Also, I think you’re employing some sort of morphing script, or at least a morphing standard here. At least, this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed a standard where a girl/woman is supposed to put up with some guy’s obvious sexual motivations while pretending he’s being perfectly platonic, up until the point where she can’t ignore it any more, after which she has to justify why she suspects that his motivations are sexual as if he didn’t already know that, only to have both him and his surroundings turn around and act as if the very act of pointing out that he wasn’t being as platonic as he claimed meant she’d just attacked his right to be sexual

Disabuse yourself of the notion that there are any decent PUA companies giving quality advice to guys. Simply put, all the men who make a living from this sordid, little subculture are more predatory when it comes to selling bunk advice to gullible virgins than they would ever be toward women. In fact, I’m surprised that this wasn’t the first thing to have jumped out at you while doing research for your book. If PUAs are notorious for anything it is for their propensity to lie in order to boost sales. Further, there are no PU teachers who genuinely give a fuck about their students enough to teach them about authenticity or honest communication. Simply put, teaching their students concepts such as these, which would actually lead to their students succeeding with women, would cut into their repeat customer business.

As far as this field report is concerned, you have to understand the business side of PUA in order to understand why this dildo would write something so completely off the wall. The reason I mention the business side is because Owen Cook has a stable of teachers who need to churn out content that supports a product currently for sale or simply to test which ideas are the most popular among their readers. In this particular instance this wild field report was intended to drum up support for a product which deals with not giving a fuck about resistance from women, a product being pushed by none other than the fucker who made the comment about handwringing. When all is said and done, this date rape fantasy is nothing more than ad copy written by a guy who would most likely shit his pants if a girl said hello to him.

You’re insinuating that people who get hurt by PUA tactics should, in general, take more responsibility and educate themselves to think and act differently, but you’re not giving people any concrete examples of where the receiving parties are supposed to do things differently, let alone what they’re supposed to do. It sounds suspiciously like “I’m sure this unpleasant situation of a man hurting a woman and/or crossing her personal boundaries must at least in some way be her fault as much as his. I just can’t figure out where.”

I’d prefer you address what I’m actually saying, rather than what it sounds like I might be saying or insinuating.

I think we are imagining very different situations. You seem to be imagining situations where PUAs are cavemanning women out of the blue, or ignoring “token resistance,” and you seem to think I’m saying that women should take responsibility for avoiding those situations. I’m not saying that, and in fact I explicitly said that I don’t support those situations.

When I talk about the responsibility and education of receptive partners and their ability to avoid situations, I am specifically thinking of situations where they take an agentic role, where they have the choice to exit the situation, where they contributed to the logistics, and/or where they are actively touching the initiator or giving verbal invitations or even explicitly saying “yes.” SnowdropExplodes might refer to the “receptive” partner as an another initiator in these circumstances.

You’re right that I haven’t given concrete examples, so I’ll do my best to explain the situations I’m envisioning:

1. Chris invites Pat back to Chris’ apartment after meeting that night in a bar. Pat sits on the couch, and they converse. Chris sits in Pat’s lap. Pat puts their arm around Chris. Chris puts their arm around Pat, and puts their face close to Pat. Pat slowly moves in and attempts to kiss Chris.

Reciprocal and voluntary physical touching is widely considered to be sexual communication, and to indicate openness to some sort (but not any sort) of escalation. In your view, is this an example of a norm that you call “sick and wrong, people who use it as an excuse to have sex with others deserve to be sent to jail, and the fact that so few of them are is a major social justice issue” ?

Is it healthy sexual communication? If it is unhealthy, then should Pat receive most of the blame? Should the culture get most of the blame?

If Chris knew that Pat would interpret that behavior (apartment invitation, lap-sitting, embrace, and facial proximity) as an invitation for a kiss, then does Chris bear some responsibility for the possibility of Pat’s kiss attempt? If Chris didn’t know that Pat would interpret that behavior as an invitation to a kiss (and was surprised), is that partly Pat’s fault? Or is it the culture’s fault for failing to educate Chris that Pat would interpret the situation as part of an escalation script? Does Chris have any responsibility to refrain from sitting in someone’s lap with lips nearly touching until they understand the sexual signaling involved?

2. Chris isn’t very assertive, and tends to be a people-pleaser. Pat invites Chris on a date. At the end of the date, they hug goodbye. Chris isn’t into Pat, and just sees Pat as a friend. Pat believes that Chris is interested, and asks Chris for a kiss goodnight. Chris says “yes” without particularly wanting to, or giving any obvious indications of a lack of enthusiasm, because of being a people-pleaser. Chris gives Pat a peck, and they say goodnight.

Chris didn’t want the kiss, but consented without giving Pat any way of predicting the lack of enthusiasm and people-pleasing behind the kiss (at least, not until after the kiss turned out to only be a peck). Has Pat taken advantage of Chris’ vulnerability, people-pleasing, and lack of capability to say “no” to the kiss request? If Chris knew that it was a date, and knew the script by which dates often end in a hug and kiss request, does Chris bear any responsibility for the situation where they went along with the kiss out of people-pleasing? If Chris didn’t know that a kiss might be requested, is that Pat’s fault?

These sorts of situations with mutual participation are what I mean when I talk about potential responsibilities of receptive partners (who often initiate some steps in the interaction). I am not talking about surprise cavemanning, and I am not talking about situations where the receiver says “no” and the initiator treats it as token; the receiver would be unlikely to anticipate or consent to such scripts.

For instance, you said with a pretty high degree of certainty that techniques like lying about where you’re taking a target is uncommon in the SC, whereas Clarisse’s experience as a target was that it happened to her literally within hours of entering the scene. That’s just one example of you arguing more from the perspective of a PUA rather than a target.

I believing that lying (aside from false time constraints) is not common in pickup teachings, and I stand by that perception. I am sorry to hear that Clarisse’s experience in “the field” was different. If some PUAs are doing something substantially more deceptive and aggressive that what pickup advice actually says, I wonder how much that reflects on pickup, and how much it reflects on them.

Similarly, pickup advocates looking for “indicators of interest” (IOIs) and looking for “reverse kino” (her deliberately touching him) during “kino escalation.” If PUAs aren’t doing this, then they are practicing something different from the suggested pickup methods.

Not just saying that it was inconsiderate and ignorant but not necessarily malicious, but saying that his behaviour was completely OK and well within the range of normalcy.

I’m in the camp that inviting someone to a hotel room late at night in an elevator out of the blue is inconsiderate and ignorant, but not necessarily malicious. Some people think his behavior was unproblematic. I don’t.

Whether he knew it or not, he was following a very common script which is accepted by lots of people.

And he was also violating several norms that are accepted by lots of people.

These are among the most rapey examples of rape you can possible get. No alcohol or ‘ambiguous’ lack of communication. The victims clearly said they didn’t want sex/wanted to go, and the rapists used physical force to get them to comply.

I agree. There is nothing “gray” about this situation, and Cosmo is full of it. While some people may believe in a norm that by inviting a men to their rooms, women “agree to go to a guy’s room and he pins them down and have sex with them after they’ve said they don’t want to, they have to take some of the blame, because they were implicitly giving some kind of consent by coming to his room” (as you put it), I think it’s pretty easy for people to examine this norm and see that it is harmful.

Having knowledge of that cultural norm can actually make them worse off than women who’re ignorant of it.

For this norm, yes. Some norms are obviously harmful and should be thrown out. I think I’ve been pretty consistent on this point during this entire thread.

When I speak of the value of educating people about norms and scripts, I’m not claiming that all norms and scripts are positive, or that people should be responsible for anticipating and fending off people acting on norms and scripts that should be recognized as toxic (such as an apartment invitation overriding “no means no,” or LMR tactics that make judgments of “token resistance”).

I do acknowledge that some people’s idea of “following norms” would lead to behavior that we would both regard as harmful, and perhaps that’s why you object to the idea of following norms and scripts. At the same time, I am not convinced that people should throw out all sexual norms/scripts, or that they are bad people for not tossing all of them. I still think there is potential value in some sorts of shared norms.

Or rather, the knowledge of “This is a common cultural norm of sexual communication” ought to be supplemented with “And this common cultural norm is sick and wrong, people who use it as an excuse to have sex with others deserve to be sent to jail, and the fact that so few of them are is a major social justice issue” in order to work properly.

I fully agree with you that some and norms are harmful, and that people will be able to figure that out. I don’t support sending to people to jail without mens rea, but I’d rather keep this an ethical discussion, rather than a legal discussion.

The question then becomes, which norms and scripts are so obviously harmful that they should be automatically thrown out? For example, look at my example #1 in my previous comment on “kino escalation” involving sitting in someone’s lap, mutually embracing, and then getting within inches of the other person’s face, leading them to believe that a kiss is welcome. Is this sort of script toxic, and if so, is the toxicity so obvious that people should just throw it out?

When I talk about the responsibility and education of receptive partners and their ability to avoid situations, I am specifically thinking of situations where they take an agentic role, where they have the choice to exit the situation, where they contributed to the logistics, and/or where they are actively touching the initiator or giving verbal invitations or even explicitly saying “yes.”

Yes, it’s possible to give examples, and you did so. But given how broad the scope is, could any of them be taken as representative? This is the issue AB was pointing out earlier on: there’s no solid ground, so it’s difficult to determine what it is that you’re asking for, other than something about “responsibility” and “education,” which is somehow related to whatever situation is being discussed, and only becomes clear once the situation is there to be discussed. Once there’s a prototype, so to speak.

Which might sound fine, in the abstract. But it’s the same kind of situation that AB is describing as morphing scripts — and those aren’t encountered abstractly.

If some PUAs are doing something substantially more deceptive and aggressive that what pickup advice actually says, I wonder how much that reflects on pickup, and how much it reflects on them.

Thinking about it for a bit, I did want to add some words on this.

I believing that lying (aside from false time constraints) is not common in pickup teachings, and I stand by that perception.

I’d agree with this, from my review over the years. However, there’s a related question: can it be extrapolated from them?

This goes to something that Abou Diaby mentioned, namely that honesty isn’t commonly featured in the materials. (Zan’s stuff, for example, would be an exception, but he’s also notable because it is.) So although it isn’t a mentioned part of the practice, it isn’t exactly inconsistent with it; and this, combined with things like ASD, bypassing state breaks, et al. can certainly lead to the idea of “acceptable deception” being extrapolated from the existing material.

Thus, it could very well end up being more common than a review of the pickup literature would suggest — while still being connected to, even facilitated by, that material.

Similarly for this:

If PUAs aren’t doing this, then they are practicing something different from the suggested pickup methods.

Although it’s true that pickup materials tend to come packaged as integrated systems, it’s also true that a common sentiment in the community is to “use what works.” It’s even a basic marketing theme: such-and-such system was developed by using what worked and dropping what didn’t, so that other guys don’t have to learn by years of trial and error.

And what’s “dropped” not infrequently includes elements from other systems and approaches. Half of the history of the community is practically defined by that.

Given how fundamental that idea is — going through forums will show post after post of people modifying, tweaking, and altering approaches, systems and techniques — it’s highly questionable to object on the basis that someone is doing something that doesn’t match with the way the system is set out in the material.

Objections can be raised; I’m not countering that. Just not on that basis.

Bringing this back to the original quote, and with these two points in mind, I’m not convinced that a clear separation between “how much [it] reflects on pickup, and how much it reflects on them” can be made. There’s no straightforward causal separation here; not unless someone wants to try and assert that there’s a PUA canon, and a proper way to interpret it. And that would do little more than define away the problem, for the purposes of argument.

Here I see your point, but it’s not a solution, as we are autopoietic systems. It’s “harm reduction”, and certainly helpful and necessary, it’s possibly the best we can do, but it’s not a solution.

You’re coming dangerously close to appropriating homophobia in order to argue for gender equity in approaching.

I’m not quite sure what you believe I meant. I am referring to guys rarely having the experience of being in a more “passive” (for lack of a better word) and observed role. I believe it would be good if more had that experience, too. I’m not sure how that is homophobic?

infra, AB,

The only thing that claiming that this is derogatory does is portray it as prejudicial, so as to invalidate the observation.

I’m feeling an urge to make a remark about how often derogatory remarks about feminism tend to make their way into your posts about unrelated subjects right now, but instead, I’d like you to read Infra’s response again.

Maybe derogatory is the wrong word. I believe that the observation is quite valid. I just don’t understand how some women’s appearance as such is relevant with respect to the general interactional problem at hand, and as such, I think the inclusion of such remarks weakens the correct argument by making it, to me at least, sound unnecessary “jealous”.

AB,

as for the rest of your comment –

It is very simple: If a blind man claims that he would like to non-sexually feel up people’s bodies to get an idea about how they look, and yet only wants to touch members of the gender and age-group to which he’s sexually attracted, it is reasonable to conclude that his claim about the touch being non-sexual is false.

Yes.

If an allegedly socially awkward/aspie man claims that he’s starved for non-sexual human company, and that it is wrong for people to read a sexual intention into it when he approaches them and creeps them out, and yet only approaches members of the gender and age-group he’s sexually attracted to, it is reasonable to conclude that his claim about wanting non-sexual human contact is false.

Absolutely.

If a doctor claims that all patients regardless of gender need to be naked for certain examinations, and yet only applies this to patients who’re members of the sex and age-group the doctor is sexually attracted to, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim about the universal necessity of the nudity is false.

Very much so.

And if the elevator guys of the world claim their actions are without any sexual motivation, but reality shows that they only approach members of the gender and age-group they’re sexually attracted to, it is reasonable to assume that their claim about lacking sexual motivations is false.

I agree, completely bogus.

Also, I think you’re employing some sort of morphing script, or at least a morphing standard here. At least, this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed a standard where a girl/woman is supposed to put up with some guy’s obvious sexual motivations while pretending he’s being perfectly platonic, up until the point where she can’t ignore it any more, after which she has to justify why she suspects that his motivations are sexual as if he didn’t already know that, only to have both him and his surroundings turn around and act as if the very act of pointing out that he wasn’t being as platonic as he claimed meant she’d just attacked his right to be sexual

I think this is an interesting aspect which you also address later with respect to “sex-mode” and “rape-mode”, although I believe “parrallel/switch” would be a better description of what’ going on than “morphing” (while morphing conversations are of course, entirely possible). I think this is very much in line with what Clarisse referred to as “strategic ambiguity”. And it really isn’t one-sided. People often aren’t clear about their intent when they start talking, there’s a lot of options and turns a conversation can take that will likely affect their intent and desires with respect to what’s going on. Sex is likely often a motivational aspect in interactions with a person of the sex a person is interested in, but it’s not always an aspect that is prominent or even the most important one. This could, of course, change over time, which is why I believe most people prefer to have the option to have a plausibly deniable exist strategy from an interaction. Being explicit – which is of course impossible until one’s own intentions are clear to oneself – makes that much harder, which, on the other hand is why big, non-ambiguous gestures can work better than those with credible deniability. But really, people need to know what they want. And *considering* the possibility of sex with someone certainly has a motivational influence on the communication, but it’s a different intent than *wanting* sex with someone.

AB, with respect to what you say to Hugh –

And yet according to Cosmo, these experiences are

something that is becoming so common, it has earned its own moniker: gray rape.

That’s as rapey as it gets. No shades of grey anywhere. Slut shaming, victim blaming. It’s at least very embarrassing for them to write that.

Here I see your point, but it’s not a solution, as we are autopoietic systems. It’s “harm reduction”, and certainly helpful and necessary, it’s possibly the best we can do, but it’s not a solution.

Except that the notion of effective history, mentioned in the context of, and integral to, fusion of horizons, goes against the notion of being autopoietitic systems in that sense, to which I could add the reference to Ricoeur. But this is illustrating the problem, isn’t it? It would be incredibly difficult to debate this point with you without retracing and summarizing at least half a century worth of philosophical debate in the process.

And that, only to achieve this: acknowledgment that a viable option, other than your perspective, might exist. It’s an undue burden, and it isn’t worth it.

I am referring to guys rarely having the experience of being in a more “passive” (for lack of a better word) and observed role.

With regard to other men. Which circumstance has causes, and which circumstance you then linked, by parallel, to women not understanding the initiating experience that men have.

You cannot raise that argument without involving the why of men not being in that position as often as women are, and you are then connecting this with women not having an equivalent experience of initiating as men. If, from this, you intend to argue that women should be more sympathetic to men with regard to initiation, you are essentially drawing upon this argument:

The existence of homophobia means that those subject to it — including through discrimination, exclusion, expulsion, ridicule, violence, and death — should be sympathetic to homophobes, because the existence of homophobia keeps them from understanding what it’s like to be gay.

Fuck that with a diesel-driven, white hot, barbed-wire flagpole. It deserves none of our sympathy, and all of our spite, our rancor, and our rage.

I’ll start considering that once the fact that someone encounters a homophobic belief is enough to land them in a coma or the morgue.

And as far as this is concerned:

I believe that the observation is quite valid. I just don’t understand how some women’s appearance as such is relevant with respect to the general interactional problem at hand, and as such, I think the inclusion of such remarks weakens the correct argument by making it, to me at least, sound unnecessary “jealous”.

What was being observed, as AB pointed out — twice — is that the statements tend to be about general human contact, but the actions tend to focus on younger, conventionally attractive women. One cannot simultaneously state that this observation is valid and then question the relevance of the observed characteristics, since that is the observation itself.

And once again, you’re characterizing it as prejudicial, and doing so through assertion. Except that this time you’re doing it by speaking more or less directly to character, and attempting to mitigate the appearance with scare quotes.

I believing that lying (aside from false time constraints) is not common in pickup teachings, and I stand by that perception. I am sorry to hear that Clarisse’s experience in “the field” was different. If some PUAs are doing something substantially more deceptive and aggressive that what pickup advice actually says, I wonder how much that reflects on pickup, and how much it reflects on them.

PUAs may not tell their students that it’s okay to lie to women, but will hand each one of them a book of routines which are meant to be used as training wheels until they’re comfortable enough to design their own. And what do you make of ice breakers which have PUAs asking women what’s the best name for dogs they don’t even own or about non-existent fights? Never mind all the text game and phone game gambits, lies designed to make women believe that you’re unavailable, or DHVs involving trips never taken, sports never practiced or non-existent girlfriends who were never dated. Let’s be honest, PUAs lie about everything. If they aren’t lying about what they did on the week-end in order to boost their value, then they’re lying to women about having girls on the side in order to run a jealousy plot line. In fact, if you’re a PUA and you’re not lying about something, then you’re doing it wrong.

Except that the notion of effective history, mentioned in the context of, and integral to, fusion of horizons, goes against the notion of being autopoietitic systems in that sense, to which I could add the reference to Ricoeur. But this is illustrating the problem, isn’t it?

Yeah, I’d say so.

And that, only to achieve this: acknowledgment that a viable option, other than your perspective, might exist. It’s an undue burden, and it isn’t worth it.

There’s also no need, I suppose. I think the methods presented can help deal with that human condition, but there can never be a true meeting of minds. Hence, harm reduction.

Fuck that with a diesel-driven, white hot, barbed-wire flagpole. It deserves none of our sympathy, and all of our spite, our rancor, and our rage.

Honestly, I have no idea what on earth you are talking about here. In my view, what I attempted was rather specific example about what people could do to attempt to broaden their’s and attempt understand the other’s horizon in a world in which creating exactly comparable experiences is impossible.

My personal experience as a heterosexual man who occasionally attended parties in gay clubs (usually in groups comprised of gays, lesbians, and straight people of both sexes) is one in which I often appreciated the attention from people who apparently found me attractive while I wasn’t interested in sexual contact with them. I may even have been disappointed if I had to leave without a little validation through such attention.

In addition, rarely, such situations also brought with them the need to mention, at the appropriate point in the appropriate way, “I’m not gay”, my subjective ideals having been mentioning it either entirely casually (which usually worked perfectly), or, depending on the interaction (in this case it was with a guy’s hand moving up my left inner thigh), in a clearly understandable way that, at the same time, still expressed a certain gratefulness for the appreciation extended.

I’d say that’s pretty close to Hugh what brought up about the recipient’s obligations in an interaction, as well as about AB’s mentioning of complex scripts that are at the same time (potentially) sexual and non-sexual. Also, with respect to the contextual variables mentioned way up in the thread, I can’t really go to a gay bar without considering the possibiliy of being approached by guys. So, to me, that seems like an approximation of some kind to what I consider to be a part of the experience of women in a primarily heterosexual club as it is explained to me by women.

So, again, no idea what you are talking about.

One cannot simultaneously state that this observation is valid and then question the relevance of the observed characteristics, since that is the observation itself.

Well, you’re right about the logical structure, of course, but to which extent the characteristics are the observation itself really depends on the extent of generalization. I’m trying to find an xkcd comic that could help illustrate my point, but I couldn’t find it yet. And it’s not that important anyway, it’s just something I find odd.

Which were situations that you voluntarily entered, in relatively controlled environments, with awareness, and had the ability to exit. And, based on how you described it, most likely in the company of friends.

Ever see the first Mimic film, where the Judas Breed didn’t die out like it was supposed to, and Dr. Tyler doesn’t understand it, because they all died out in the lab? Dr. Gates’ response was this:

“But you let them out into the world… and the world is a much bigger lab.”

You’re going on the lab, Sam. We’re out in the world, and have no choice but to live there.

Which were situations that you voluntarily entered, in relatively controlled environments, with awareness, and had the ability to exit. And, based on how you described it, most likely in the company of friends.

yes, and that is also a pretty accurate description of how most women I know tend to go out. I don’t understand what your point is, really. That I cannot truly understand either a gay man’s or a woman’s perspective? No doubt, I can’t. That was, sort of, my point above. But above you mentioned how understanding could be created through fusing horizons. And how, in an imperfect world, would understanding not be improved by lab-visits?

yes, and that is also a pretty accurate description of how most women I know tend to go out.

A woman does not cease to be a woman, to experience life as a woman, to be read as a woman, or to be treated as a woman, after she leaves the club.

As for the rest… I’d agree that that’s the state of things. But not because of the argument you’re advancing. It seems that, in order to adopt an alternate view to the one you currently hold, you require refutation of multiple philosophical points; but the burden for doing so is immense, and would be heavy even in the case of a comprehensively educated polymath. And supporting this, you have lab visits, which continue to add further support, through this reinforced, seige-resistant position, to whatever positions you have adopted.

That doesn’t contribute to mutual understanding. It forecloses it completely.

1. Chris invites Pat back to Chris’ apartment after meeting that night in a bar. Pat sits on the couch, and they converse. Chris sits in Pat’s lap. Pat puts their arm around Chris. Chris puts their arm around Pat, and puts their face close to Pat. Pat slowly moves in and attempts to kiss Chris.

…

SnowdropExplodes might refer to the “receptive” partner as an another initiator in these circumstances.

Indeed, and I see several points in this example that could be perceived as moments of very unwelcome violation, that might even have overtones of the issue raised in example 2. Chris takes the initiative to start with by presenting an invitation, which is in most instances easy to reject if the meaning is understood (for example, if both C and P recognise and use the code of “coffee”). From the description of the escalation, it feels as though neither C nor P was certain that the code was understood – the conversation is a material factor in each party gauging the interest of the other (meaning that the initial invitation’s significance is decreased). The first point of potential violation is C sitting in P’s lap. Up to this point, initiative has twice been taken by C and none by P, and sitting in someone’s lap is very restrictive of that person’s movement and capacity to object in a meaningful way (that is, they can raise an objection, but they cannot easily take action on their own part to enforce the rejection) – spoken as someone who has had people in my lap on numerous occasions, sometimes after inviting them into my flat (all of them also invited to sit in my lap – but the physical restrictions are the same whether invited or not). If someone unilaterally decided to sit in my lap, I would be very unhappy about it, and I would make clear signals that it wasn’t welcome as soon as the intent became clear (if the intent was not clear until too late, then I would be extremely unhappy). Given that it is also C’s home, not P’s, this is putting P at a huge disadvantage. Without knowing what in the conversation led up to C sitting in P’s lap, this is a very troubling narrative at this point, and I would say that agency has shifted almost entirely away from P and onto C.

The next step indicates non-verbally, P’s acceptance of the situation but again, crucial context is missing for the gesture. Let’s say that it’s genuinely welcoming, and P actually is happy with the escalation, feels safe despite the restricted movement, and the embrace is sending signals accordingly. (One contrary hypothesis might be that it’s an automatic reaction whenever someone sits in P’s lap; another might be that the movement is quick and P acts instinctively in the belief that C might fall.)

Given that working assumption, then C’s reciprocal embrace establishes the baseline of the current level of intimacy; the facial proximity motion escalates the intimacy level again; its purpose also has to be interpreted on context: is C speaking, puckering lips, simply looking into P’s eyes, or what? I’ll assume “looking into P’s eyes” for this exercise. That means that P’s move to kiss is the first consciously determined act since the act of joining C in hir apartment (which I would describe as “weakly determined” since the act is chosen by another, and P simply agrees to it). So this is the first point at which I would confidently describe P as the initiator (the arm embrace could be seen that way, but strikes me as more of a response to the lap-sitting).

2. Chris isn’t very assertive, and tends to be a people-pleaser. Pat invites Chris on a date. At the end of the date, they hug goodbye. Chris isn’t into Pat, and just sees Pat as a friend. Pat believes that Chris is interested, and asks Chris for a kiss goodnight. Chris says “yes” without particularly wanting to, or giving any obvious indications of a lack of enthusiasm, because of being a people-pleaser. Chris gives Pat a peck, and they say goodnight.

Chris didn’t want the kiss, but consented without giving Pat any way of predicting the lack of enthusiasm and people-pleasing behind the kiss (at least, not until after the kiss turned out to only be a peck). Has Pat taken advantage of Chris’ vulnerability, people-pleasing, and lack of capability to say “no” to the kiss request? If Chris knew that it was a date, and knew the script by which dates often end in a hug and kiss request, does Chris bear any responsibility for the situation where they went along with the kiss out of people-pleasing? If Chris didn’t know that a kiss might be requested, is that Pat’s fault?

First question: who initiates the hug? What are the qualities of the shared hug, in terms of surgency etc? How did the date go?

One key element about P’s request: P allowed C to choose the type and length of the kiss, thus allowing C to retain control of hir boundaries to that extent. This is something that is not present in the lap-sitting example above.

As to your questions, I’m guessing that this scenario is at least loosely based on the situations to which you alluded earlier, so I’m hoping to avoid inappropriate/harmful remarks:

Has Pat taken advantage of Chris’ vulnerability, people-pleasing, and lack of capability to say “no” to the kiss request?

If we say that the kiss P wanted was an end in itself, and not merely perceived as a means to an end (that is, the kiss itself is pleasurable and not merely for P a socially-expected ritual to signify a desire for more such dates, and maybe a relationship), then I think the answer is undoubtedly, yes. If it is for P a socially-expected norm designed to lead to an anticipated pleasure, then the context is wider, and the conduct on the date and in order to set it up becomes significant, because the entire exercise, not just the kiss, could be interrogated in the same terms. Certainly, if P knows enough about C or has observed C, then P is in a better position to be aware of and avoid exploiting C’s personality traits. If P is relatively new in C’s life, then it is still incumbent upon P to watch out for signs of these traits.

If Chris knew that it was a date, and knew the script by which dates often end in a hug and kiss request, does Chris bear any responsibility for the situation where they went along with the kiss out of people-pleasing?

That depends on what C thinks those rituals mean: if C understands that a hug is normal “goodbye” not just for dates but for other friendly encounters, but that a kiss or kiss request only happens when the date has gone well (if C isn’t into Pat in that way, then we can guess that C might feel the date went okay but not “well”, while P might have formed a different impression), then C might not have expected the evening to culminate in a kiss, but only a hug situation (and I’ve more-or-less described my own position – although I am slightly more reticent when it comes to hugs, a goodbye hug to a friend is my norm; the reticence is more about who counts as “friend”). To the extent that C feels unable to disappoint P by explaining hir feelings, then it is incumbent upon P to be receptive to the vibes both on the date and afterwards. Not always easy: I’ve read situations wrongly like that myself (though I don’t rate my skills very highly in that regard, so it’s not a good benchmark to go on!) P, as the one who has a vested interest in the outcome (i.e. wanting a relationship), is the one on whom the onus of responsibility falls to check that this is, in fact, a mutually desired outcome, and while blame is not necessarily an appropriate word (since it implies there is a perfect method of doing so), when it fails, the responsibility is still P’s, and not C’s.

If C knows hir own personality traits well enough to foresee the problem, then zie knowingly takes the risk at the point of accepting the invitation, of hir own mental state at the moment of the request at the end of the evening being either strong enough or not strong enough to say no. However, the onus remains on P to avoid putting the gamble to the test.

If Chris didn’t know that a kiss might be requested, is that Pat’s fault?

It’s not P’s fault, since it isn’t P’s job to educate C. Again, P’s job is to look for the signs and seek to avoid problems like this. With a whole evening, maybe the signs aren’t clear or maybe they get overlooked in amongst the rest f the stuff going on (or due to wishful thinking), but the important thing is for P to be looking out for them, even if zie ends up reading them wrongly. (This is the core issue I have with dependence upon scripts.)

In all of these, I feel like the key responsibility in terms of laying blame or ascribing “fault” is in what happens next. (To the extent that this date is a part of a series of events, that may have given P cause to doubt had P been receptive to the signals, then various points in the evening might also incur blame.) Since P is the one who has an investment in the outcome, and is taking actions towards achieving that outcome, then P is responsible and blameworthy if zie continues to pursue after suspecting that it isn’t welcome (which you implied would be the case after the peck on the cheek, even if not at any earlier point). This, of course, is a problem given the social script of men always being the initiator for setting up dates (at least, early in a relationship), because that can set up an imperative to test the suspicion by asking again.

Yes, it’s possible to give examples, and you did so. But given how broad the scope is, could any of them be taken as representative? This is the issue AB was pointing out earlier on: there’s no solid ground, so it’s difficult to determine what it is that you’re asking for, other than something about “responsibility” and “education,” which is somehow related to whatever situation is being discussed, and only becomes clear once the situation is there to be discussed.

I also find it difficult to get people in this thread to articulate what they are asking of initiators. The claimed responsibilities of initiators are morphing around, also, and initiators are considered responsible for anticipating a large swathe of vulnerability, lack of capability, lack of knowledge on the part of the receiver, and also anticipate potentially “unreliable” communication. Yet few guidelines are given on the level of capabilities and vulnerabilities that should be anticipated, or on what sorts of communication are sufficiently reliable. The message I’m getting is “sure, initiators might not be responsible and deserving of stigma for completely everything, but we can’t say where their responsibilities end.”

If so much responsibility is being placed on initiators with little consideration of what is fair, and what their capabilities are, then I have to ask whether they indeed deserve such a high level of responsibility, or if some responsibility is out of their hands and located somewhere else. Either the receptive partner or the culture may hold some responsibility, depending on the situation.

I have tried to give some examples where I think the responsibility might not be mostly on the initiator. I’m still having trouble figuring out the principle that binds those examples together.

I am cautious about stating a general principle of receiver responsibility which might have false positives: e.g. holding them responsible for something they should not be held responsible for, such as sexual assault or a boundary violation. I hope you can understand why I’ve been trying to pick my words so carefully. Even just by suggesting the notion of receiver responsibility, AB associates it with victim-blaming and excusing practices that I’ve explicitly condemned.

As for the relevance of education, that came up when people were claiming that PUAs were lying, or that their advances risked surprising women in dangerous ways, or being harmful to women of different capabilities. I observed that whether those behaviors cause deception or surprise depends on the cultural knowledge and experience level of the woman involved.

Expecting the initiator to anticipate all of those things is a tall order for non-telepaths, so rather than putting all the responsibility for communication/miscommunication on the initiator or the receiver, I would rather defer some of that responsibility to the culture. The responsibility of the culture is to educate people about norms, to educate people about each other’s potential capabilities, to create norms with positive results, or to abandon norms when they are found harmful.

I am cautious about blaming individuals (whether initiators or receivers) for flaws in cultural norms and scripts that would be difficult or impossible for an individual to figure out on their own.

Which might sound fine, in the abstract. But it’s the same kind of situation that AB is describing as morphing scripts — and those aren’t encountered abstractly.

Consequences for initiators aren’t encountered abstractly, either. In the event of a sexual miscommunication, they may face shame, guilt, and stigma, even if they were doing their best with their current knowledge and capabilities. The claims of responsibility towards initiators in this thread are also not merely philosophical. AB, for instance, speaks of initiators acting on certain norms as “sick” and deserving of jail, and she has not defined what sort of initiating deserves that assessment. That’s not abstract.

I’d agree with this, from my review over the years. However, there’s a related question: can it be extrapolated from them?

That’s a good question: can lying (beyond what PUA materials advocate) be extrapolated from pickup materials? I think the answer is “yes,” but I also think that forms of radical honesty also get extrapolated from pickup materials, because pickup materials are not unitary and the guys studying them are not a monolith. For example, many PUAs hate routines and believe that they are counter to pickup. A whole school called “direct” came about which involved being very upfront about intentions, which was also extrapolated from pickup.

This goes to something that Abou Diaby mentioned, namely that honesty isn’t commonly featured in the materials. (Zan’s stuff, for example, would be an exception, but he’s also notable because it is.)

That depends on the materials. Zan is not the only exception, there is also Juggler and direct schools. That’s enough exceptions to throw away the generalization that honesty is uncommon in pickup.

Thus, it could very well end up being more common than a review of the pickup literature would suggest — while still being connected to, even facilitated by, that material.

That’s true. Though if we are going to blame pickup for the deceptive and negative practices that some men extrapolate from it, we should also credit pickup for the honest and benevolent practices that other men extrapolate from it.

That depends on the materials. Zan is not the only exception, there is also Juggler and direct schools. That’s enough exceptions to throw away the generalization that honesty is uncommon in pickup.

This is where our review of materials becomes an issue. I’m familiar with direct, as well as with Juggler, and to that, I’d add AMP and a couple of others. But still, in terms of the material that I’ve reviewed, that still amounts to, being generous, about 10-15% of the products out there.

That isn’t counting forums, only officially published material, and excluding the categories of Speed Seduction and its derivatives, and the obvious MRA fringe.

Zan was the author that I highlighted because he emphasizes it in a way that does not require a shift to a new paradigm, such as radical honesty: it’s compatible with how the word is generally understood, as well as with how it is generally expressed, and thus reflects general expectations regarding honesty much more closely than what is found in, e.g., direct game. AMP’s stuff would be the closest to a second.

Though if we are going to blame pickup for the deceptive and negative practices that some men extrapolate from it, we should also credit pickup for the honest and benevolent practices that other men extrapolate from it.

Agreed, but with the caveat that there’s a third element: the ratio of deceptive and negative practices to honest and benevolent ones. This is where pickup fails.

Returning to the comment previous:

I also find it difficult to get people in this thread to articulate what they are asking of initiators.

With due respect, part of that is because instead of a pattern of suggesting a line of thought that would do this, to have it met with a response of how this would be problematic for initiators (cf. comments around the mid-160s). Your description in the remainder of the paragraph from which this quote is taken illustrates this; what I have been arguing for is not “[being] responsible and deserving of stigma for completely everything, [without being able to] say where their responsibilities end,” but that initiators need to develop the skill set to adjust to unforeseen occurrences, and should be culturally aware, so as to reasonably ascertain the structural pressures that their actions will exert. (That the second is liable to error is the reason for the first.) The problem is that this is not the type of answer that you seem to be looking for, so it doesn’t look like I’ve been giving one.

That “the claimed responsibilities of initiators are morphing around” is a result of having to give answers in the format that you’re requesting them: since there is no solid ground, no answer can be given until a concrete situation (or prototype) is at hand, which may differ, even radically, in its consequences from another concrete situation (or prototype) that may differ, only slightly, in its features. Which is to say: you’re experiencing, in this, what it’s like to be in the receptive position.

And with that in mind, it’s worth quoting this:

If so much responsibility is being placed on initiators with little consideration of what is fair, and what their capabilities are, then I have to ask whether they indeed deserve such a high level of responsibility, or if some responsibility is out of their hands and located somewhere else.

As I wrote earlier: what you’re proposing as the solution is, in point of fact, the fundamental problem.

I’m heartened that when we talk about about a specific example, our opinions are moving closer together.

Without knowing what in the conversation led up to C sitting in P’s lap, this is a very troubling narrative at this point, and I would say that agency has shifted almost entirely away from P and onto C.

Let’s say that Pat invites Chris to sit on their lap. They put their arms around each other, and then Pat moves their lips inches away from Chris’, making eye contact, without talking.

If Pat moves in to kiss Chris, is all the responsibility on Pat? Or has Chris given Pat good reasons to believe that a kiss attempt is welcome due to nonverbal communication?

Certainly, if P knows enough about C or has observed C, then P is in a better position to be aware of and avoid exploiting C’s personality traits. If P is relatively new in C’s life, then it is still incumbent upon P to watch out for signs of these traits.

In the example I’m envisioning (#2, where Pat asks permission for a kiss at the end of a date, and Chris, being a people-pleaser, gives in), Pat does not know that Chris would have trouble saying “no” to a request for a kiss. Pat underestimates Chris’ people-pleasing tendencies because (pick one or both):

(a) Chris seems like a warm person, but does not give strong cues that they are such a big people-pleaser that they would have trouble saying “no” to a request for a kiss on the end of a date that seems to go well,

(b) Pat is not aware that some people have such strong people-pleasing tendencies that it would be difficult for them to say “no” to a request for a kiss at the end of a date. Pat does know because nobody told them, and they doesn’t read ClarisseThorn.com, sexual assault forums, feminism, or BDSM material.

If C knows hir own personality traits well enough to foresee the problem, then zie knowingly takes the risk at the point of accepting the invitation, of hir own mental state at the moment of the request at the end of the evening being either strong enough or not strong enough to say no.

Ah, finally we seem to agree on something. Yes, in this example, Chris does know their personality traits well enough to foresee the possibility of saying “no” to a kiss. Chris does not disclose this possibility, nor state that they like to move slowly, or anything like that.

P, as the one who has a vested interest in the outcome (i.e. wanting a relationship), is the one on whom the onus of responsibility falls to check that this is, in fact, a mutually desired outcome, and while blame is not necessarily an appropriate word (since it implies there is a perfect method of doing so), when it fails, the responsibility is still P’s, and not C’s.

P attempts to check by asking permission for a kiss. P believes that the date went sufficiently well that C might be open to a kiss. P’s belief is mistaken: as you guessed, C thought that the date was merely “OK,” but is not sexually interested. Nevertheless, C is such a people-pleaser and warm personality that C does not give any obvious evidence of their lack of sexual interest during the date, or during the hug.

If Chris didn’t know that a kiss might be requested, is that Pat’s fault?
It’s not P’s fault, since it isn’t P’s job to educate C.

I’m glad we agree on that. I was interpreting some comments in this thread to imply otherwise: that it would be P’s job to educate C about the possibility of a kiss request occurring at the end of a date, or to ensure somehow that C was indeed aware of that possibility.

Again, P’s job is to look for the signs and seek to avoid problems like this. With a whole evening, maybe the signs aren’t clear or maybe they get overlooked in amongst the rest f the stuff going on (or due to wishful thinking), but the important thing is for P to be looking out for them, even if zie ends up reading them wrongly.

I agree that P’s job is to look out for signs of interest or disinterest. In this case, P didn’t detect disinterest (due a combination of P’s lack of capability to pick up on it, and C’s personality traits masking it).

P is responsible and blameworthy if zie continues to pursue after suspecting that it isn’t welcome

which is what Hugh’s asking about, if I’m not mistaken. If we cannot even get out of the definitional circularity in addition to the epistemological problems, then all that is left is to disagree about the usefulness or danger of scripts/culture, and lab-visits and their relative cultural prominence as both tool/environment to mitigate/exacerbate the problem.

[…] then all that is left is to disagree about the usefulness or danger of scripts/culture, and lab-visits and their relative cultural prominence as both tool/environment to mitigate/exacerbate the problem.

Impressive hybrid of several different discussions there. But separating it out and focusing on the issues involved with Hugh, yeah, pretty much what I said: it doesn’t even get recognized that an answer’s being provided, because it isn’t in the kind of form that would be accepted, so things just end up getting rehashed.

Of course, what Hugh is asking about reasonably ascertaining, and what I’m talking about reasonably ascertaining, are very different things, which is what lifting those words out of context obscures.

well, if you’re aware of that, as well as you are apparently aware of what constitutes the difference with respect to “reasonably ascertain” between Hugh and yourself, and given that you sort of made Hugh the recipient party above, wouldn’t it be reasonable for an initiator to bridge that gap by choosing a form that would be acceptable (I don’t think that’s the appropriate word here, though) to the recipient?

Relating Hugh’s arguments to the experience of the receptive position, and to the arguments that AB especially, but I as well, have been advancing regarding it, was an initial means of attempting to build that bridge.

Without meaning to be unduly harsh: the success or failure of that attempt will ultimately be determined by Hugh, not you.

This is where our review of materials becomes an issue. I’m familiar with direct, as well as with Juggler, and to that, I’d add AMP and a couple of others. But still, in terms of the material that I’ve reviewed, that still amounts to, being generous, about 10-15% of the products out there.

Perhaps, but those methods are still common enough that they can’t simply be glossed over in discussions of the honesty of PUAs.

That isn’t counting forums, only officially published material, and excluding the categories of Speed Seduction and its derivatives, and the obvious MRA fringe.

Good point. If we look at forums, the results might be different.

Agreed, but with the caveat that there’s a third element: the ratio of deceptive and negative practices to honest and benevolent ones. This is where pickup fails.

I think it would be difficult to calculate that ratio, especially since there is a lack of consensus on which PUA practices are honest and benevolent, and which are deceptive and negative, towards which women.

The problem is that this is not the type of answer that you seem to be looking for, so it doesn’t look like I’ve been giving one.

You have been giving answers. Although I sometimes respond skeptically, that doesn’t mean that I’m missing your answers, or that I’m not appreciating the effort you are putting into them. Nevertheless, your answers do raise more questions. You say:

Your description in the remainder of the paragraph from which this quote is taken illustrates this; what I have been arguing for is not “[being] responsible and deserving of stigma for completely everything, [without being able to] say where their responsibilities end,” but that initiators need to develop the skill set to adjust to unforeseen occurrences, and should be culturally aware, so as to reasonably ascertain the structural pressures that their actions will exert.

Earlier in the thread, you have emphasized “systemic flexibility”, while SnowdropExplodes emphasizes the “scientific method.” You both also emphasize the importance of recovering from errors. I have several issues with this perspective:

1. It is highly asymmetrical: placing a greater responsibility for adjustment, awareness of structural pressure, and cultural knowledge onto initiators. Initiators and receivers benefit equally from positive, consensual sexuality… yet initiators are morally required to have more skills and cultural or psychological knowledge. You may feel that such an inequality is needed in present-day low-level interaction for the purposes of safety, and while I might be willing to agree.

But I believe that the whole cultural apparatus where someone is expected to be a primary initiator acting with limited information and great responsibility is fundamentally corrupt and harmful to everyone, even if the appropriate short-term solution is to pile yet more responsibility and blame on the shoulders of individual initiators.

2. There are still many things left unspecified. What is the level of skill that initiators need to develop to adjust to unforeseen occurrences? What level of “systemic flexibility” to adjust to the other person’s signals in an ongoing situation? Just how “culturally aware” of “structural pressures” must an initiator be? What does it mean to “reasonably ascertain” those pressures, and who decides what is “reasonable”? How much knowledge does an initiator need in these areas to be able to initiate without being a bad person?

As another example, SnowdropExplodes claims that if communication “is unreliable, and the initiator is unaware of that unreliability, then it isn’t communication, it’s an excuse.” Yet he also feels that it is ethical for him to negotiate kisses nonverbally. Presumably, Snowdrop believes that the communication he uses to negotiate a kiss nonverbally is sufficiently reliable that he is not merely making an excuse for abusing people. So, he seems to have a notion of communication that is sufficiently reliable (and he clarifies that the reliability descends from a reciprocal exchange of nonverbal signals), but I am still left wondering exactly what sorts of reciprocal nonverbal communication grant sufficient reliability, in his view. Sorry, Snowdrop, if I am misunderstanding your view.

From talking with Snowdrop, I now believe that his views are more complex than “if your communication is unreliable, it’s an excuse” (to attempt to summarize his earlier claim), but I wish to point out that statements like that are not abstract, and have a potential to stigmatize real people who may not deserve it.

3. You and SnowdropExplodes both underscore the importance of “recovering from unforeseen errors.” I agree. Yet the error still occurred, and it’s unclear to me whether you would still place some responsibility and/or blame on the initiator, even if they try to adjust. In his latest post, SnowdropExplodes says that the “fault” for an honest mistake largely depends on how the initiator handles the situation after, rather than being automatically blamed. That’s a perspective I can appreciate, but Snowdrop and I cross-posted, so I hadn’t seen his response when writing my reply to you.

4. The process that you and SnowdropExplodes describe of awareness of pressures, cultural knowledge, “systemic flexibility” to unexpected signals and data, and the scientific method sounds beneficial, but it also sounds very demanding. Ah, but can’t we demand ethics from initiators? Yes, we can, but those depends need to be achievable by human beings in the present.

Most people just are not very smart. They are not knowledgeable of other people’s potential capabilities and vulnerabilities. Nobody has taught them how to recognize those things or adjust to them, beyond explicit communication or very strong body language. They can’t handle the scientific method. They just do what other people around them are doing.

Perhaps your perspective is that initiators should do their best with the knowledge and capabilities that they have, be on the look-out for when their views are wrong, and take into account new knowledge about the capabilities of others or the pressures on others they encounter. If they make at least some sorts of good-faith mistakes, they can be exculpated if they respond by shifting course, stopping, or apologizing. That’s my attempt to piece together what you and SnowdropExplodes are saying. If so, then our views are not so far apart after all, and the responsibility/blame accorded to initiators does not outstrip the capabilities of most of the population.

As I wrote earlier: what you’re proposing as the solution is, in point of fact, the fundamental problem.

You mean using norms and scripts? Well, I think we still lack of a shared understanding of what norms and scripts mean, and what it means to make use of them. For now, I will point out that your idea of ethics for initiators involves cultural knowledge and awareness of structural pressures, so you do seem hold an initiator’s knowledge of norms and scripts to be important.

In all of these, I feel like the key responsibility in terms of laying blame or ascribing “fault” is in what happens next.

I thought more about this, and it’s possible that we’ve had different notions of what “responsibility” means. I thought that if you hold more responsibility, you are automatically subject to greater fault, blame or stigma if a miscommunication or mistake occurs.

In this discussion, I’ve been taking a position that is defensive of initiators being blamed, faulted, or stigmatized for situations where they have good intentions, and where they couldn’t have know better with their current knowledge (unlike the example in the OP).

If your notion of placing responsibility on initiators does not require automatically stigmatizing and blaming an initiator the instant a mistake or miscommunication occurs, then perhaps my defensive posture is unwarranted.

Well, there were two reasons for the exclusion. One is that “forums” is a dubious category, since some are associated with companies, some are anti-company, some are open market, and some gravitate around certain approaches; it would need to be narrowed to be useful. The other is that the officially published material is standardized, obviously, which eliminates variances in influence due to variant phrasings and the like. (Translations being the obvious exception.) In forums, that’s a common issue, and it complicates the question significantly.

Which is why it’s often better to consider posts and threads with an eye to the specific wording and response, and not to the general technique being discussed, IME.

I think it would be difficult to calculate that ratio, especially since there is a lack of consensus on which PUA practices are honest and benevolent, and which are deceptive and negative, towards which women.

Which is my point. If pickup were succeeding in this regard, the issue would be an identifiable ratio in favor of the benevolent. Since this consensus, from what I’ve seen over the years, doesn’t even exist within the community, it can’t purely be attributed to criticism of pickup itself.

You have been giving answers. Although I sometimes respond skeptically, that doesn’t mean that I’m missing your answers, or that I’m not appreciating the effort you are putting into them. Nevertheless, your answers do raise more questions.

This is kind of the point, though: the questions that are being raised are questions that the answers are designed to address, but in a different way. To take “systemic flexibility” as an example: I might not have defined it explicitly, but the idea is that this is what an perspective has if it combines the ability to adjust with cultural awareness, and what it loses when the ability to adjust is lost (or not developed), or cultural awareness becomes, not context, but heuristic. An emergent property, essentially, whereas scientific method is precisely that: a method.

It might be best to explain this in a more technical way at this point. I don’t think that it would have made much sense earlier on, though.

Anyway:

Where methods would come in is in the development of the skills involved in the ability to adjust, which goes back to things like the “normal matter of course” mentioned in the mid-160s comments. We’re not talking about the development of heuristics here, either, though, at least not in a purely formal sense; it’s more like the development of heuristic in combination with perceptual and muscle memory. Basically, it’s a flexible view, not of the amount of information that one needs to acquire, but of procedural memory itself. Of, in essence, the way in which one uses the information that one already has, and of the optimal ways to expand it.

This, then, is applied along with the semantic memory of cultural awareness. And it’s here where the difference between script as context and script as tool comes in: in the latter, it wouldn’t be semantic, but procedural. The advantage of semantic memory is that it’s a “store once, use often” type of memory; to change this to a procedural form results in a formidable amount of duplication, and thus a massively heavier cognitive burden. Also, with semantic memory’s connection to episodic memory, the ability to relate the current situation to similar others, and differentiate it from similar others, becomes easier; again, when procedural memory is used instead, the burden is increased.

The point of this being that the aim is to develop the capability to handle the social environment, especially considering that initiating and receptive positions can be considered to be, fundamentally, those of impacting upon a structure, and of being embedded within a structure, respectively. Even if these positions might shift in assignment.

When it comes to this, though:

There are still many things left unspecified. What is the level of skill that initiators need to develop to adjust to unforeseen occurrences? What level of “systemic flexibility” to adjust to the other person’s signals in an ongoing situation? [snipped for brevity]

I did address this in #230. But to illustrate, take either of the situations that you and SE have been discussing, and change one element.

How does that affect the cascade?

Change two. Change the order of some of them. Change the location. Change the timing. Change the time of day. Change the city, the state, the country, the subculture, the ethnic and racial identities, the ages, the religious backgrounds. Change something even as basic as how awake or tired either individual is. Skip a step.

We could spend over one hundred comments discussing responsibility and education aspects of one of those two scenarios based upon possible variations. Then we could do the same with the other, using the same variations, without necessarily getting similar results. And this is considering two relatively similar situations.

This is what I was pointing out, and why I was connecting it with AB’s mention of morphing scripts: there are many things left unspecified because there’s no way that it could be comprehensive. Whether or not representative situations could even be identified is questionable; as AB noted, as information about the situation changes, the interpretation applied often does as well, and not necessarily predictably. Going at it this way is kind of like building the Bastille in the Sahara.

This: solution as fundamental problem.

Moving on to the subject of adjusting for errors:

Yet the error still occurred, and it’s unclear to me whether you would still place some responsibility and/or blame on the initiator, even if they try to adjust.

Actually, I did address this. Or started to; it got derailed in the exchange with Sam, around #169. As I phrased it there, “Making honest mistakes isn’t the problem; demonstrating an awareness of one’s limits, and making a good faith effort to account for them, is. These are the conditions for tolerance.”

This, really, is the answer to the point above, about how much knowledge is required: there is no such general requirement. What is required, however, is that one recognize the limits of one’s knowledge, and make efforts not to overstep them. Sometimes this will mean staying within a low region of error, sometimes it will mean going into one where the possibility of error is more pronounced; that’s an issue of risk tolerance. But so long as (1) one is aware of what one knows, and (2) one is aware of whether or not the current situation falls within that domain, an abstract standard for how much knowledge is required, isn’t. And this structure also provides a more flexible — and, I’d argue, more accurate — way of portraying how errors in initiating might occur, by showing that there are two areas that can become, independently, impaired, and by different kinds of causes.

(If you consider many of the things that we’ve both been noting as positive, such as paying attention to IOIs and IODs, they tend to work on this basis, in both the positive and negative senses.)

That’s probably more than enough to catch up on, though. Hopefully it clarifies more than confuses.

As another example, SnowdropExplodes claims that if communication “is unreliable, and the initiator is unaware of that unreliability, then it isn’t communication, it’s an excuse.” Yet he also feels that it is ethical for him to negotiate kisses nonverbally.

I had to check the context of that earlier remark, it was made in reference to “obscure implication” such as “coffee” meaning “sex”, and I think I worded it badly (typing more with passion than judgement). The point being that relying on knowledge of such a script is a means for a person to absolve themselves of responsibility should they end up raping the person they invited for coffee. Being “unaware” in that instance really seems to me like criminal negligence.

The nonverbal kiss negotiation is a two-way process, responding to the feedback from the partner and not assuming any particular meaning from any one gesture or moment, but using the entire total of data to make a best estimate of the significance of the current moment. In that sense, it is precisely the opposite of the “obscure implication” type of script. And yes, it could still go wrong and I could still make a mistake. I haven’t yet. The more data available, the better the chances of getting it right (thus, 7 hours of interaction before attempting sex!)

The point specifically, is that I get feedback that gives me an idea about how reliable each signal is, and if I’m getting confusing signals or feel unclear about what;’s going on, then I pull back, or try to jump out of the script and check with explicit communication (see the earlier thread where Infra and I discussed this stuff at great length).

As for, “I am still left wondering exactly what sorts of reciprocal nonverbal communication grant sufficient reliability, in his view,” anything that is genuinely reciprocal satisfies my criteria; but a lot of scripts do not have that property, and the example of “coffee” (or “etchings” in the Stephen Pinker video that I dislike) demonstrate that clearly.

As a general rule, I would say an initiator needs to make genuine effort to be sufficiently aware of how hir actions may result in consequences outside of the planned storyline/script, and failure to at least make that effort is a cause for blame.

Most people just are not very smart. They are not knowledgeable of other people’s potential capabilities and vulnerabilities. Nobody has taught them how to recognize those things or adjust to them, beyond explicit communication or very strong body language. They can’t handle the scientific method. They just do what other people around them are doing.

Also known as the “Code Red” defence? (“Show me in here where it says where the mess hall is.” “It doesn’t.” “So how did you find where to eat?” “We just followed the others, sir.” – dialogue recalled from rusty memory, may be somewhat fuzzy.) But, of course, most people aren’t marines trained to follow orders without a moment’s hesitation, either.

I have a higher estimation of people, it seems. In particular, I believe that most people can catch a ball if you throw it up in the air. I’d bet most of them can’t solve the complicated equations that describe the flight of a ball if you put them in front of a sheet of paper and asked them to, and yet somehow they manage it in real life. How? We learn it by experience and the unconscious mind does the complicated mathematics. I think that social experience is a similar thing. Give people the basic principles, and I think they’ll surprise ya. Heck, if I can do it with negotiating a kiss non-verbally, and I’m such an introvert that I have really only a small amount of social experience to learn from, how hard can it be?

Perhaps your perspective is that initiators should do their best with the knowledge and capabilities that they have, be on the look-out for when their views are wrong, and take into account new knowledge about the capabilities of others or the pressures on others they encounter. If they make at least some sorts of good-faith mistakes, they can be exculpated if they respond by shifting course, stopping, or apologizing.

This is pretty close to the position I’ve been trying to outline. Maybe it comes from my understanding of my Christian faith, but I believe that nobody is capable of perfect knowledge, and we are all therefore destined to fuck up from time to time. (in fact, to me, this is the only basis for “original sin”, which if I’ve understood the theology correctly technically makes me a Pellagian heretic, although I derived it directly from reading English translations of the (canonical) Gospels.) This is why (as I understand it) God offers His Son to redeem humanity, and why acknowledging our guilt need not bar us from being understood as good people – indeed, it is acknowledging our failures and our guilt (or sin) that shows that we are redeemable.

Translate that theology into ethics (whether religious or secular!) for dating, and it looks like what I’ve tried to describe, and that you’ve summarised above. We can’t rely on being perfect, we can just do the best we can, and seek to accept our responsibility and guilt for our fuck-ups while trying both to mitigate the consequences and do better next time (“repentance”, in the Christian terminology). In Infra’s reply #241, referencing #169, this seems to be phrased as, “Making honest mistakes isn’t the problem; demonstrating an awareness of one’s limits, and making a good faith effort to account for them, is. These are the conditions for tolerance.”

So, in your comment directed at me,

If your notion of placing responsibility on initiators does not require automatically stigmatizing and blaming an initiator the instant a mistake or miscommunication occurs, then perhaps my defensive posture is unwarranted.

I think that is exactly the situation, and to be honest it confused me that you kept conflating responsibility with blame.

Think of it as being a driver at the wheel of a car; the driver is responsible for the car for as long as they are at the wheel, and for making sure it is parked safely (handbrake on, for example). If something breaks on the car causing it to behave erratically, the driver is still responsible for the vehicle, but is not to blame should there be a subsequent collision (unless it was their own negligence in keeping it maintained that caused the failure). The driver simply does what zie can to minimise the damage caused.

Or, consider, “responsible adult” with regards to childcare. The responsible adult has to do hir best to keep the child from harm, but children are what they are and not necessarily very controllable: they will, sometimes, get into scrapes regardless of the best efforts of those around them to prevent it (speaking from memories of being a kid with lots of responsible adults around, and still finding plenty of ways to get hurt or in danger; and my brother even more so!). The responsible adult is only to blame for that if zie neglected or abdicated that responsibility of looking out for the child.

But to illustrate, take either of the situations that you and SE have been discussing, and change one element.

How does that affect the cascade?

This is exactly what I felt about trying to address the points, and I ended up abandoning a reply to #233 precisely because of this kind of effect. I tried to illustrate the futility of it in #227 by highlighting how many assumptions I had to make to get to a scenario where I could make an attempt at giving a verdict (what I sometimes refer to as “fractal ethics”, in that small changes in conditions bring about big changes in outcome, and there’s always an extra layer of detail that can be added). Infra’s list of things to change like location or culture, I think, ties in quite nicely with my personal reaction to the “sitting on the lap” element, too, that for me the bald statement of the move seemed very agency-removing, and I imagine for other cultural backgrounds or life-experiences that might not be others’ immediate understanding.

We could spend over one hundred comments discussing responsibility and education aspects of one of those two scenarios based upon possible variations. Then we could do the same with the other, using the same variations, without necessarily getting similar results. And this is considering two relatively similar situations.

That’s true, however, if we discussed enough scenarios, we might inductively discover the principles for how to ethically evaluate them. It’s true that we might disagree, but at least we would have a better idea of the principles on which we disagree.

This is kind of the point, though: the questions that are being raised are questions that the answers are designed to address, but in a different way.

Yes, deferring one question into multiple questions can often be helpful. The reason I was exposing your concepts to so much scrutiny was because, by holding initiators mostly responsible, I thought you meant that initiators would be blamed or stigmatized if they failed, while the criteria for ethical success were not very clear.

However, if you aren’t being trigger-happy with blame and stigma, and that’s not (automatically) what you entail by speaking of responsibility, then the unspecified components of the ethics you propose are not so worrying to me.

In general, I believe that it may be possible to more thoroughly specify out sexual ethics and how to dynamically react to different situations and contexts, but that’s another subject.

“Making honest mistakes isn’t the problem; demonstrating an awareness of one’s limits, and making a good faith effort to account for them, is. These are the conditions for tolerance.”

I understand that you said “making honest mistakes isn’t the problem,” but I was having trouble reconciling it with other parts of your perspective. For instance, I thought that by placing most of the responsibility on initiators, then they would be blamed or stigmatized for any mistake, however honest. Perhaps I was misunderstanding your concept of responsibility.

I had to check the context of that earlier remark, it was made in reference to “obscure implication” such as “coffee” meaning “sex”, and I think I worded it badly (typing more with passion than judgement). The point being that relying on knowledge of such a script is a means for a person to absolve themselves of responsibility should they end up raping the person they invited for coffee. Being “unaware” in that instance really seems to me like criminal negligence.

While I realized that you probably meant something different, I wasn’t sure what exactly you meant, so I was left being bothered by what you said, which sounded like a broad imputation of negligence to for “unreliable” communication while not stating which communication my be reliable enough. Anyway, I think we can move on from that now.

The nonverbal kiss negotiation is a two-way process, responding to the feedback from the partner and not assuming any particular meaning from any one gesture or moment, but using the entire total of data to make a best estimate of the significance of the current moment.

I agree that an accumulation of different data points greatly increases reliability.

As for, “I am still left wondering exactly what sorts of reciprocal nonverbal communication grant sufficient reliability, in his view,” anything that is genuinely reciprocal satisfies my criteria; but a lot of scripts do not have that property, and the example of “coffee” (or “etchings” in the Stephen Pinker video that I dislike) demonstrate that clearly.

OK, I think I understand your objection now: you are treating the apartment invitation (and its acceptance) as a one-off exchange of signals. If that’s indeed the case, then yes, it’s problematic to assume interest based on that one signal, and even more problematic to assume consent from it. I tried to acknowledge that above, when I said that a script about the meaning of the apartment coffee invitation does not justify cavemanning someone once you get in the door.

If the coffee invitation is merely one signal out of many within a two-way feedback process, then it may indeed be useful when considered in context of the entire total of data (e.g. what happens during the cup of coffee). That entire total of data should also include stronger indicators of interest and consent prior to actually making a move within the apartment. Does that make sense?

As a general rule, I would say an initiator needs to make genuine effort to be sufficiently aware of how hir actions may result in consequences outside of the planned storyline/script, and failure to at least make that effort is a cause for blame.

I could agree, as long as we acknowledge that initiators vary in the capabilities, experience, and knowledge that underly their efforts and awareness.

But, of course, most people aren’t marines trained to follow orders without a moment’s hesitation, either.

True, but it’s well-known that humans exhibit a high degree of conformity. There are limits to the power of individual personality, intelligence, and empathy. I believe that recognizing these limits is important for recognizing one’s capabilities, which you and Infra advocate.

Give people the basic principles, and I think they’ll surprise ya.

It seems like giving people the basic principles is a big part of the work.

This is why (as I understand it) God offers His Son to redeem humanity, and why acknowledging our guilt need not bar us from being understood as good people – indeed, it is acknowledging our failures and our guilt (or sin) that shows that we are redeemable.
…
Translate that theology into ethics (whether religious or secular!) for dating, and it looks like what I’ve tried to describe, and that you’ve summarised above. We can’t rely on being perfect, we can just do the best we can, and seek to accept our responsibility and guilt for our fuck-ups while trying both to mitigate the consequences and do better next time (“repentance”, in the Christian terminology).

I can see how this outlook would be relevant to an individual. On a larger perspective, there are some implications that trouble me.

Is it indeed the case that the initiator role will result in a greater amount of guilt? Or that it is more sinful than the receiver role? Are initiators in greater need of redemption merely because they are more responsible for mistakes? If so, is it really inevitable?

As an alternative perspective, the knowledge of individuals is highly dependent on their culture, so for some mistakes, the individual need not feel guilt, or some of the guilt and responsibility should be diffused across the entire culture rather than expecting one agent to shoulder it all. People can sometimes tell when sociocultural forces are leading them astray, but that ability is limited.

Also, I will point out that in reciprocal and mutual communication, a “fuck-up” may not be the responsibility of only one person, the failure might also be related to the other person, to false guidance from friends/family on either or both sides, to messages from the media, and outwards through the culture. But you may already agree with that.

Anyway, noting the cultural, interactional, and situational components of failures is still compatible, I believe, with recognizing and repenting for the component that we individually were responsible for. To do better next time, sometimes it may be necessary to recognize that we weren’t the sole variable in a fuckup.

I think that is exactly the situation, and to be honest it confused me that you kept conflating responsibility with blame.

Your analogy to driving and childcare does help me understand what you mean by responsibility. Of course, it’s another question whether sexual interactions are as asymmetrical as a driver-passenger or adult-child relationship.

That’s true, however, if we discussed enough scenarios, we might inductively discover the principles for how to ethically evaluate them.

All right, let’s start with the most basic question, then:

Since we’re talking about broad principles for ethical evaluation, what would the range of these example scenarios need to be, including consideration of elements such as culture, ability, location, culture, race, orientation, and kink, in order to produce a generally representative sample, from which those principles could be derived?

This is the other part of the problem, as I mentioned. It isn’t just that there are variations; it’s that it’s questionable whether or not any given set of situations being examined could be considered to be representative. The problem requires a different kind of approach.

I’ve been trying to formulate the perfect response for a few days, but it’s not going to happen, so I’m just going to blurt out the first few things I want to say.

I definitely agree that, in the moment, a woman’s feelings of safety are of the utmost importance and she should not be shamed for taking the steps necessary to ensure her safety. My concern is only with the tendency to assume predatory intentions and unfairly stigmatize in cases where it’s just as likely someone was just clueless. As I’d said above, I believe Watson’s initial reaction was fairly egalatarian, and I can agree that criticisms of her initial statement were overblown.

Having dealt with some morphing scripts myself, I sympathize with your frustration. I have witnessed this kind of waffling from men, and I have spoken against it in the past, albeit rather meekly. Ill be sure protest more strongly in the future.

“I’ve encountered two stories of men who used these exact tactics to get a girl home.”

So out of the tens of thousands (probably much more) field reports TWO use such tactics. I know you haven`t read them all but I expect anything worse would have been picked up by critical people/feminists reading it and the circulating around the web on feminist sites. What this tells you is that PUAs DON`T use such tactics. They easily could have but since this is absent from 99,9% of field reports this is not condoned. I`d say you will find far more non PUAs using this than PUAs.

“Did Neil Strauss actually become a charismatic guy because of the routines that he claims taught him to be that way, or was he already basically there?”

I`ve never used routines but reading routines, reading lines, reading cocky funny jokes and push pull games etc. and reading field reports where I could see how guys escalated and took charge of interactions etc. made me understand flirting way better and made me adopt similarish behavior and invent my own and learn to improvise. It provided me with the basis for SEEING what was going on. It finally cracked the code for me in terms of understanding. From that my understanding has grown more and more just by observation. All of that has laid the groundwork for developing far more charisma than I could have by just not being nervous. I could already be not nervous and comfortable in that in many cases. That was not where it was at. So, although I can`t quite say what was the case in Neils case I`ll say that in my case it has certainly opened the door to a far greater charismatic repertoire so to speak.

Thanks for being showing such an understanding for PUA culture and for doing actual research and doing it respectfully.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the book the rules which is broadly accepted by women as dating advice it is ok for them to follow, a years worth of advice in Cosmo and dating and relationship advice from various books targeted at women. The level of manipulation recommended to women in those three sources IMO parallels that of PUAs and exceeds a lot of it in many ways. I`d say women for the most part have zero problem with advice on along the lines of PUA advice as long as it is something they themselves can use. Women analysis guys texts and discussing what to send back with their girlfriends regularly advice all sorts of manipulation. This is why I don`t take most, although not all, PUA criticisms by women seriously. THey apply a double standard. Case in point. Athol Kays marriedmansexlife.com site started off solely going advice to men on how to have good relationships based on PUA theory. It turned out to be immensely successful. In fact the predictability of the responses of the women to his advice was almost scary. Eventually many men told the women where they had gotten the advice to change and the wives started asking for advice and many women also found the site on accident and also asked for advice. So he tried to tailor advice from women along the same lines and it worked really well to. Now his site has more than 50% female readers and commentators. In other words once PUA advice can be used by women they are perfectly fine with it. i`ll make an exception for certain tactics here though which I expect many of them would still not like.

IMO PUA advice makes men MORE ethical daters than average guys. Average guys use very manipulative but different tactics. (IMO women use even more manipulative tactics, social manipulation is something women are good at not men.

”
That’s a good question: can lying (beyond what PUA materials advocate) be extrapolated from pickup materials? I think the answer is “yes,” but I also think that forms of radical honesty also get extrapolated from pickup materials, because pickup materials are not unitary and the guys studying them are not a monolith. For example, many PUAs hate routines and believe that they are counter to pickup. A whole school called “direct” came about which involved being very upfront about intentions, which was also extrapolated from pickup.

This goes to something that Abou Diaby mentioned, namely that honesty isn’t commonly featured in the materials. (Zan’s stuff, for example, would be an exception, but he’s also notable because it is.)

That depends on the materials. Zan is not the only exception, there is also Juggler and direct schools. That’s enough exceptions to throw away the generalization that honesty is uncommon in pickup.”

Being INDIERCT is not the same as being dishonest and many PUA schools advocating being indirect. My experience with women has thought me that words themselves have very little meaning and almost everything is about sub communication. When evaluating ethics in dating evaluating is to a large extent more important than evaluating the words themselves. If a man is seeing multiple girls and he comes of as a very playerish ladies man and things he says IMPLIES that he is seeing other women, he has in fact clearly communicated to her that he does IMO. And the thing is women seem to prefer this. I used to think women valued direct open communication about everything and tried to use it as much as possible. Encouraged by PUAs I started to try to sub communicate things a lot more in ways such as the example of how you communicate you are seeing other women. What I found was that women seemed to prefer this on almost all levels. IN fact it became clear to me that I had been “punished” in the past for direct communication. I would always be “rewarded” for it by being told they where glad I said x,y,z but in fact as I judge it in hindsight I could notice slight decreases in attraction and slight displeasure because of it. Doing the opposite works much better. Also in hindsight it is clear to me that the women always paid far more attention to my sub communication when I was trying to communicate directly. So for the most part I don`t believe in it any more except for in certain instances. Most women, by far, seem to enjoy far more to read a man through indirect means rather than through literal meaning of words and they seem to enjoy him understanding her through seeing her sub communication far more than through what she says. In fact women seem to hate it when they have to explain things to men because they feel the men should have understood her needs if he had paid attention to her, if he had really known her etc. There is indeed SOME variation to this IMO. I do on rare occasions encounter women I truly believe prefer a far more logical approach for the most part but these are very rare and as the women I encounter give me no reason to act otherwise because they reward the current behavior by liking me more and being more happy together with me and “punished” me for my past open communication behavior by doing the opposite before, Women give me no reason to behave any other way.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the book the rules which is broadly accepted by women as dating advice it is ok for them to follow, a years worth of advice in Cosmo and dating and relationship advice from various books targeted at women.

While I’m sure the women you choose to spend your time on are all OK with that kind of advice, I’ve never seen it being broadly accepted by anyone except the kind of women men seek out to validate their prejudices. A lot of people regard Cosmo as a guilty pleasure, and even more people despise it, and The Rules provoked a lot of controversy, despite being politically incorrect (which usually guarantees support). And more to the point, many of the same people who criticise PUA practices also criticise the stuff you mentioned.

But I guess it’s easier to focus on the genitals of the people who criticise something that turns you on, and claim that since somebody else has published something for them (even though they never wanted it and strongly oppose it), it erases their objections to anything you do or say. Not that you don’t have a right to claim so, but if you want to tell me I’m wrong in objecting to being raped because some other women read Cosmo, it would only be fair to also give me the right to attack you on sight because a couple of other men tried/threatened to sexually assault me. Either you should agree to be held responsible for the actions of other men, or you should stop holding all women responsible for preferences of others.

The level of manipulation recommended to women in those three sources IMO parallels that of PUAs and exceeds a lot of it in many ways.

I don’t know about that. PUA tactics seem to recommend quite a few more direct lies. But the main difference to me is that the advice for women is usually focussed on making the man happy. Cosmo advices things like rising early to brush your teeth before climbing into bed again, so your BF isn’t exposed to your morning breath, telling him you’ll suck on a strong mint to give him a tingly sensation when giving oral sex, so he doesn’t have to face the reality that his unwashed crotch stinks and is unpleasant to be close to, avoid wearing high heels so that he’ll seem taller in comparison etc.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen advice for women about delivering passive-aggressive backhanded compliments/insults to make him insecure about his own attractiveness. I’m sure it’s there somewhere, but most of it seems to be about making him feel good or making yourself seem attractive. It’s also often a lot more indirect, such as leaving an erotic novel turned on a specific page describing one of your fantasies in a place where he can find it, in the hopes that it will give him inspiration. Ridiculously complicated, but hardly as intrusive as physically pushing him into a car while lying to him about where you’re going.

I`d say women for the most part have zero problem with advice on along the lines of PUA advice as long as it is something they themselves can use.

I’d say it’s a lot more important what these women’s targets think about advice like that.

Women analysis guys texts and discussing what to send back with their girlfriends regularly advice all sorts of manipulation.

It would be helpful if you could give examples. “Women do it too, and much worse” seems to be a standard internet reply from guys, but they rarely, if ever, elaborate on it, even when asked. Perhaps it’s the typical male fondness for indirect communication which causes them to assume we should already know?

This is why I don`t take most, although not all, PUA criticisms by women seriously. THey apply a double standard.

So the gender of the people making a criticism is more important than the actual criticism? Even though their gender is the one subjected to the stuff they criticise?

IMO PUA advice makes men MORE ethical daters than average guys. Average guys use very manipulative but different tactics. (IMO women use even more manipulative tactics, social manipulation is something women are good at not men.

Now you’re talking like a PUA “Women have this special intuition which enables them to immediately pick up all your signals, and they’re so manipulative that you can be sure they know what they’re doing all the time. So don’t worry, no matter what you do, you can always safely assume the woman is the one who’s really in control of the situation, and therefore holds the responsibility”.

Doers it ever occur to you that maybe women need to play these games more because of how they have to jump through hoops to accommodate men like you and the culture that supports you? Most of the manipulative skills I’ve learned have been from trying to avoid offending guys.

Being INDIERCT is not the same as being dishonest and many PUA schools advocating being indirect. My experience with women has thought me that words themselves have very little meaning and almost everything is about sub communication.

Such as indirectly separate her from her friends, indirectly tell her you’re going to a club so that you can get her to your house, indirectly take your clothes of in front of her and indirectly order her to suck your dick?

And the thing is women seem to prefer this.

Take it from someone who’s both been around a good deal of socially awkward guys (many with Asperger’s syndrome) and of honest guys. There’s a difference. Being unable to hold back, moderate your statements, or adjust yourself according to the situation, is a whole different level of directness than just being frank and honest. Since a lot of PUAs seem to be drawn into it because they’re unusually unsuccessful with women, chances are they’re in the former category.

I used to think women valued direct open communication about everything and tried to use it as much as possible. Encouraged by PUAs I started to try to sub communicate things a lot more in ways such as the example of how you communicate you are seeing other women. What I found was that women seemed to prefer this on almost all levels. IN fact it became clear to me that I had been “punished” in the past for direct communication. I would always be “rewarded” for it by being told they where glad I said x,y,z but in fact as I judge it in hindsight I could notice slight decreases in attraction and slight displeasure because of it. Doing the opposite works much better.

I think it depends on what you’re honest about. Revealing your true self and real intentions tend to not work if those things are not appealing in themselves. Being honest about who you are will never get you anywhere (except perhaps in the Quiverfull movement or the MRM) if your posts are any indication of who you are.

Also in hindsight it is clear to me that the women always paid far more attention to my sub communication when I was trying to communicate directly.

That’s called ‘being human’. Seriously, study after study consistently shows that the majority of our communication is non-verbal. Why are you insisting on making this some mysterious ‘woman’-thing? It’s not only insulting, it’s damaging. It would have saved me a hell of a lot of trouble if I’d realised earlier that most men are highly emotional, extremely sensitive, dependant on signals and indirectness, and yet benefiting from the delusion that they make sense (while women are the irrational ones). They really aren’t that different from women. Being considered the norm means they’re often more relaxed (e.g. not as likely to hide bodily functions) and as a result slightly more direct, but the outward insistence that they’re rational adds a further layer of complexity you don’t see much in women, so it evens out.

In fact women seem to hate it when they have to explain things to men because they feel the men should have understood her needs if he had paid attention to her, if he had really known her etc.

Sometimes it’s exhausting because women are assumed to know a lot more about men, and the negative consequences towards women who don’t pay attention means that most of them learn eventually.

There is indeed SOME variation to this IMO. I do on rare occasions encounter women I truly believe prefer a far more logical approach for the most part but these are very rare

I’ve never encountered a single man who preferred a logical approach. Probably because the standard approach is much more beneficial to them. For instance, confronted with a whole message board condoning and promoting the idea of abducting women for the purpose of torturing them (and yes, rape is classified as torture, and for good reason), one would think that classifying it as a problem and contemplating what to do about it would be the obvious reaction. Instead, we get reactions like this:

and as the women I encounter give me no reason to act otherwise because they reward the current behavior by liking me more and being more happy together with me and “punished” me for my past open communication behavior by doing the opposite before, Women give me no reason to behave any other way.

“Waaaaaah! Women are human beings! How dare they act perfectly normal by being all diverse and react to non-verbal communication, almost as if they were men and entitled to human dignity and not being the victims of hate crimes? It’s intolerable, and until they start acting like I want them to, I’m going to defend a bunch of rapists!”

Sorry Clarisse, I’m not going to be friendly here. You brought up a case of a group of men exchanging ideas for how to abduct and rape women, even policing the few men who raised slight objections. After roughly 10 posts, the straight guys on the thread start talking about what women ought to know and expect, and now we’re entering the phase where they don’t even feel they have to pay lip-service to the idea that the opinions quoted in the OP are disgusting before they go on about how women bring it upon themselves.

I’m not sure if Clarisse is back yet, but I don’t have any issue with your response. If things get out of hand on any commentor’s part (and I’m still modding if/when it happens), I’ll step in once I see it, and as needed.

I’m not impressed with Sceptic’s comment either, especially given that he seems to be ignoring a lot of points that have already been made. I’ll content myself with pointing out that when I say that I’ve heard two stories of women being taking home without being asked first, they’re both stories I heard personally, not Field Reports. (And one of them actually happened to me.) Which means they’re a much higher proportion of the available data than he seems to think.

Oh, and yes, I did compare The Game to The Rules in my book. I think that might have even been mentioned on this thread already.

One of the things that bothered me greatly about this discussion was how quickly and readily people like Hugh and Sam appeared to concede that social “white lies” lie somewhere on the same spectrum as the behaviors described in the RSD thread.
The other issue is whether PUA in general, rather than RSD in particular, cultivates, shields, and justifies rapists more than other male subcultures and more than the culture in general. The Israeli Center for the Art of Seduction (Merkaz L’Omanut HaPitui) had a member who posted a similar thing (the subject heading was on the order of “I Totally Raped This Chick”) and was quickly subjected to fairly massive public pressure for Tel Aviv, including submission of complaints to the prosecutor for investigation on behalf of the unidentified victim, invasion of the Center’s seminar by demonstrators, and intense press coverage. So there is a theory and there has been practice.

Lastly, there is another “Gift of Fear”-related issue, one that I am familiar with from having been subjected to various forms of street- and long-cons, namely knowing exactly what is going on and not being able to do something about it. Walking away from a con in a public space is entirely different from getting out of having been sequestered by a predator, and I don’t know how to handle the “Taxi” problem. If someone is arguing with you about where you should be, he already places his goal of controlling you above your well-being, which is probably all you need to know. The more we discuss Clarisse’s experience and the “lying to get someone home”, the more I can see it turning into a simple case of false imprisonment, which is a crime and a civil tort. As a seduction tactic, it is senseless, it makes one instantly readable only as a predator, meaning that any other reading (including “wait & see”) requires a safety-compromising “benefit of the doubt” of the type Clarisse extended in her personal narrative of the issue. I think the guy was clueless to what he was telegraphing but (less likely but more horrifying possibility), he IS a predator but Clarisse’s status in the “in-group” of PUA (“one of ‘our women'”) made her off-limits for the full treatment. {Massive trigger warning for false imprisonment, sexual assault, & rape] Amnesty International Norway’s “Nei er Nei” video, if you can find it, illustrates the situation where the guy is simply a predator, and if directed at women, I can only see it as encouraging them to fight their way out to unlock the door, if directed at men, it becomes unintelligible…”please don’t be a predator.” I think this is my misreading, though.

But yeah, the RSD thread isn’t about seduction, it’s about false imprisonment, sexual assault, and rape, and I think AB underlined that. I am probably viewing this too naiverly and exposing this take to unanticipated critiques of all sorts, which I accept because of the generally high-minded tenor and goodwill of the commenters here.

[As with the previous comment, content warning for the subject matter of the “Nei er Nei” video.]

I’m not sure that you’re mistaken about the unintelligible nature of the message, or at least about how the video alone might not have sufficient impact to get that message through. But that was what I found striking about how they went about it: their use of the interface.

You don’t seem to be able to go forward or backward in the timeline while it’s playing, only pause it.

And when she’s saying “no,” the “woman” icon appears, with sound muted, and you can’t unmute it.

But you can try.

Also, I’d agree that the point you raised about being one of the “in-group” was well made, and well worth considering. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the any of the worse possibilities become the actual ones, but yeah: that “one of ‘ours'” status isn’t a trivial thing. And it can cut both ways.

Yes, the blanking out of sound is related to Amnesty’s campaign against rape statutes that require the victim’s physical resistance for the offense to be prosecuted as rape rather than sexual assault (Finland), and in favor of proposed emendations of law that would move towards an affirmative consent model. So the video is really aimed at 3rd parties and the blanking out of the sound is aimed to produce the viewer’s recognition that this is rape even without an audible “No” and the force required by previous statutes in Norway and the current Finnish statute. It’s not an anti-rape PSA although it borrows the usual structure thereof, but a PSA about changing the model of consent used in rape law and a redefinition of the “vold” in “voldtekt”. But it seemed the obvious example of a scenario where someone is sequestered by a perpetrator misrepresenting the situation, as in the OP.

I don’t know how sinister the lack of in-group protection got in the case of the Chicago PUA lair Clarisse hung out with, and she doesn’t really speculate in _Confessions_. Maybe she can expand a bit on that particular case and on anything reliable she may have heard. It may be that with outsiders they felt neutral about lying and about the distress that pushing until they got a clear “NO” may have caused.

Yeah, I get the purpose of blanking it out, along with the the text that comes up when you try to disable the mute. But it’s the effect of the interface elements that does it though, I think.

Because it’s one thing to see it, or to hear her voice being obscured by the noise. It’s another to try and bypass parts of the video and skip over the things that you don’t want to see, or experience, or try to give her a voice — only to find that you can’t. And the fact that Amnesty built those things into it, into the experience… that’s what makes it different.

It’s a message that doesn’t come across just by watching, but when someone tries to respond to it.

Which kind of ties it back into some of the earlier points in the thread, doesn’t it?

On the outsiders/in-group point, yeah, wouldn’t want to speculate on the situation or the people involved. But I’ll just note that I’ve certainly seen (and heard) differences in how people are treated based upon that status — especially women — and that includes extending to “street justice” handling of rape allegations. There’s the court that happens in court, and there’s the court that exists outside of it, and whether someone’s got “in-group” status or not — and if that status is good status at the time — plays into how that works out. Though I’m sure that class, locality, and a number of other factors are always involved. IME, it’s mostly something that comes up when the courts aren’t a viable option.

Kind of like the morphing scripts point that AB brought in… there’s a lot of ways to gain, and a lot of ways to lose, a “do not fuck with” badge.

By the way, I really liked Clarisse’s interview on the Dr. Nerdlove website. His site, though, has, again, made me wonder about the usage of the term PUA, pickup advice, etc. It really seems to me that it has become an umbrella term for all dating advice for men, and that it, in the general discourse, includes even those who are trying to separate themselves from what they themselves define as PUA. And if so, what does that mean for appropriate criticism? I mean, it’s a bit like feminists complaining about people who use Valerie Solanas in arguments about feminism. If that’s a fair complaint, why would it be fair to group, say, someone like Dr. Nerdlove, with someone like the guy in the RSD forum.

Eurosabra, I linked to an article about the Israeli case above.

Since Eurosabra mentioned what bothered him most in this discussion, I’ll do the same: I was bothered most by the fact that risk-management seemed to be inevitably more important than opportunity-creation, that there doesn’t seem to be – not just in this conversation – much appreciation for the initiating party in general.

But I’ll also say what I really liked: that the conversation was and is very respectful, even in disagreement.

One of the things that bothered me greatly about this discussion was how quickly and readily people like Hugh and Sam appeared to concede that social “white lies” lie somewhere on the same spectrum as the behaviors described in the RSD thread.
[snip]
But yeah, the RSD thread isn’t about seduction, it’s about false imprisonment, sexual assault, and rape, and I think AB underlined that.

The thing is, all behaviour takes place somewhere on a continuum. There is no doubt that entering the KKK, and the contempt and dehumanising attitude towards black people it entails, is on a different level than ‘merely’ making casual use of the word “nigger” as a slur, with the contempt and dehumanising attitude towards black people it implies. Nonetheless, I have yet to see anyone deny that one of these behaviours tend to be more prevalent in times and places where the other thrives.

Measuring things like rape myth acceptance indicate that there is a close link between holding attitudes justifying rape and actually committing the act. A further implication of this is that individuals who’re exposed to surroundings where these attitudes are common are more likely to internalise them and subsequently more likely to commit rape themselves.

The guys on the RSD boards obviously felt confident enough about the acceptability of their beliefs about rape to state them openly without fear of reproach (and so far, I haven’t seen any huge surge of condemnation from other PUAs proving them wrong). The question is whether that security comes from a belief that their opinions are commonly accepted, and whether that belief serves to encourage their current behaviour. I’d say both are very likely.

One of the things that bothered me greatly about this discussion was how quickly and readily people like Hugh and Sam appeared to concede that social “white lies” lie somewhere on the same spectrum as the behaviors described in the RSD thread.

I guess that the reason I’ve been hesitant in addressing this point is that I’m not sure how to read it. Seems like there are two ways.

Are you saying that it bothered you because you think that Sam and Hugh should have put up more of a defense, or that it bothered you because, if even Sam and Hugh were apparently so ready to concede it, that suggests something that causes you deep concern?

Not that this is something specifically about Sam or Hugh; it almost sounds like a crisis of doubt.

It’s the epitome of a top-down community, because the leaders can visibly do things the acolytes wish to do, and training to do those things comes with obligatory support for the leaders and sharing of their worldview. It’s an atomized community of weakly interlinked nodes made up of concentric inner circles, so it leaves me a bit puzzled about how I’m supposed to have social leverage on men elsewhere who won’t associate with me and who do their stuff elsewhere. People occupy different spaces while doing different things. And I say this as a veteran of events that were intended to be plenary congresses, like the PUA summit. One can have a limited range of influence on one’s friends and immediate associates, that’s about it. If you don’t have a certain amount of “pull”, socially with the men of the community and very obviously, literally, and quickly with attractive women, you get dumped into the herd of customers and everything becomes cash-up-front and you might pony up for the Summit before everything becomes prohibitive except for those with six-figure incomes, US$. I’ve been a friend, a hanger-on, and a cash cow to various PUA gurus and it’s really easy to tell the difference really quickly in the way one is treated, perhaps there is something analogous to the way women are treated in that, and how quickly the hackles are raised, except that every time I naively “treat women as people” I wind up alone for a very long time. (And since I stopped using very ancient hypnotic PUA stuff, my romantic life has pretty much stagnated. It is, however, more authentic. Perhaps we can address the issue of men who feel their identities, being-in-the-world and masculinities are incompatible with women’s aggregate preferences to the point of incel.) I also don’t have any experience of situations where women DON’T have total social control of the interaction, text and subtext, so the idea of someone raping somebody at a student house party (as in the Nei er Nei video) is unintelligible to me, that degree of isolation would be immediately noticed and policed by other women, there would already be one of her friends on the stairs. (Hence the importance of “Do you mind if I borrow your friend for a moment?”)

I live in a very weird place, socially, so I don’t see PUA as anything other than a playful form of asking, and I don’t think asking can be coercive, and given the Tel Aviv party scene, I see male sexuality as a whole (except for alphas) as pshitat yad, begging, the extended open palm. This may be because everyone is crowded in to the same spaces, well-off, socially linked by extended networks of gossip.

It comes down to the opacity of the “white lie” for the recipient, and the difference when it is used as a tool of the predator, versus its use euphemistic social convention. If you are not a predator the fact that you have inveigled someone into “viewing your etchings” becomes either an opportunity for mutual seduction or a sheepish moment as your sexual overture is deflected. If you are a predator, it is already too late. Since I am personally non-threatening and (more importantly) am consistently read as non-threatening, I tend to hold a more consistent brief for social euphemism as harmless. This is probably at odds with doctrine on enthusiastic consent, of course, but my experience has been the unlucky one that more explicit asking leads only to more explicit rejection, usually derided around here as apocryphal.

No argument here, when it comes to what you wrote about the dynamics of the community. And that’s especially the case when it comes to those of us who have particular concerns to deal with: class ones, or disability, or ethnicity and race (though, to a degree, that last has been addressed in products from time to time). Other than profit sources and testimonials, we’re just not their concern.

I mean, I know of one product, part of the Love Systems Interview Series, that briefly addresses disability issues. But that’s it.

One.

But that’s exactly why I’ve become convinced that it’s important to take what’s useful from them, carefully evaluate it, improve it, purge from it what damages us and others, and make it our own.

When it comes to the subject of the white lie, though: I think that you’ll find, even if differently stated, that you haven’t been alone in that perspective here.

By the way, I really liked Clarisse’s interview on the Dr. Nerdlove website. His site, though, has, again, made me wonder about the usage of the term PUA, pickup advice, etc. It really seems to me that it has become an umbrella term for all dating advice for men, and that it, in the general discourse, includes even those who are trying to separate themselves from what they themselves define as PUA. And if so, what does that mean for appropriate criticism? I mean, it’s a bit like feminists complaining about people who use Valerie Solanas in arguments about feminism. If that’s a fair complaint, why would it be fair to group, say, someone like Dr. Nerdlove, with someone like the guy in the RSD forum.

The difference is that I haven’t seen anyone deny that Solanas was feminist (but then again, I haven’t seen anyone providing proof that she is one either, it just seems to be taken as a given), only that she wasn’t representative of many feminists and that her shooting of Andy Warhol wasn’t about her feminism. The same with Andrea Dworkin, another popular target for anti-feminists. People have been saying that she was a product of her time, that she was reacting against an even more hateful tone (and actions) used against women, and that she didn’t say most of what the haters claimed she she said, but they haven’t said that she wasn’t a feminist.

And when Doctor Mindbeam at NSWATM said that feminists needed to retroactively kick Mary Daly out of the feminist movement, because unlike all other social justice movements (who accept a certain degree of diversity, even when they viciously disagree), feminism had to be all rainbows and lollipops in order to have any value, I recall lots of people disagreeing, especially outside the NSWATM comments which he moderated quite heavily at times. It seems most feminists have no issue acknowledging that other people are feminists too, even when they object to the opinions of said people.

Also, the guys (plural) who advocated and defended rape on the RSD forum with the support of one of the instructors and the founder of the company represent a far bigger part of the SC, being an actual company and having the creator featured in The Game. Not to mention that we’re not just talking about a single instance. From what I can gather, Roissy/Heartiste is not representative of PUAs, Roosh is not representative of PUAs, Gunwitch is not representative of PUAs, and now Tyler Durden and the whole RSD is not representative of PUAs either. And those are just the specific names I remember.

In fact, I’ve hardly ever heard of a PUA who wasn’t said to only represent a tiny fringe of the SC, which makes it very hard to have actual conversations about the SC where criticisms raised aren’t just brushed off with “he’s not a real PUA/he’s the exception”. At least feminists (to stay on your favourite topic) will sometimes argue that certain theories are misunderstood and certain statements are taken out of context, or that the actions of certain feminists should be seen in light of what they had to endure (which was pretty much always worse than what they subjected men to), or just something other than “those people don’t count”.

I don’t judge the whole subculture on a few individuals, but I do pay attention to what is condemned and what is encouraged in general. Hugh Ristik was capable of easily locating several articles openly criticising feminists for linking Gunwitch’s crime to his attitudes and opinions as a PUA, and yet the only mitigating circumstance he’s presented here is that a couple of forum users made some very mild suggestions that maybe rape wasn’t 100% OK before they were policed by the rest of the community.

One would think that decent people would go “Whoa! A major PUA board has an admitted rapist teaching others how to most easily rape! What went wrong here and what can we do to change it?”, but it seems more PUAs are outraged by the idea that people would link the actions of one of them to his work as a PUA than by the idea of committing acts of predetermined torture towards out-group members (as long as those out-group members are female and the torture is socially acceptable). That really says a lot.

Since Eurosabra mentioned what bothered him most in this discussion, I’ll do the same: I was bothered most by the fact that risk-management seemed to be inevitably more important than opportunity-creation, that there doesn’t seem to be – not just in this conversation – much appreciation for the initiating party in general.

That’s because risk-management is more important than opportunity-creation. Especially if we’re weighing the opportunities you’re allowed to create for yourself up against the risks you’re allowed to subject others to. From what I recall, you seemed very interested in risk-management when the issue was about sparing men the risk of being called creeps, even though most men in those situations had control over when they wanted to take that risk. The general pattern seems to be that whenever your ass is on the line, risk-management (especially other people’s) tends to take priority.

From what I can gather, Roissy/Heartiste is not representative of PUAs, Roosh is not representative of PUAs, Gunwitch is not representative of PUAs, and now Tyler Durden and the whole RSD is not representative of PUAs either. And those are just the specific names I remember.

And this is why the other thread I mentioned earlier on bothered me as much as it did. As I mentioned, the OP there? It’s Reyes territory. And if that name might not ring a bell: Reyes is Gunwitch.

Less than a year after that, and the same kind of attitude was being promoted to a PUA forum’s Hall of Fame section, with a five star rating.

The fact that this doesn’t seem to be troubling people too much? That’s a serious problem.

Dude, so Jeffy from RSD totally asked my friend on a date over OKCupid last night. This is, to be clear, “jlaix” from the thread in the original post above. I will update the group when I am done perishing with laughter.

His profile certainly shows a certain amount of creative outrageousness, perhaps making a virtue of necessity. But creating a Gonzo, Hunter S. Thompson-style persona and implying you aren’t safe for women, the ultimate “bad boy”, hmm…

Jeffy msged my friend, and my friend was like “wait this profile is hilarious and ridiculous, I have to show Clarisse.” I looked at it and I also thought it was hilarious and ridiculous, so I got curious and convinced her to send him a message saying that he should email my clarisse thorn email address.

He responded by saying “sorry I don’t date groupies, especially pickup groupies … Clarisse does know who I am right?” and my friend was like “wait, what? who are you?” By this point I had already forwarded his profile to a PUA friend and my friend was like “That’s totally Jeffy from RSD.”

I’m a little concerned that by getting excited and amused about this whole incident I’ve raised this guy’s stock in my friend’s eyes — I think she’s gonna go out with him. Part of me is dying to see how he acts on a date, but part of me is worried about her specifically, because she’s kind of vulnerable temperamentally (very sweet girl, doesn’t like disappointing or hurting people, and really wants a steady boyfriend). Guess I’ve done all I can though :p

hmm, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with respect to the first part of your reply. That it’s ok to group people (like Dr. Nerdlove, and I’m really saying this based only on a very brief look at his website) who are actively attempting to separate themselves from the behaviour you (and really everyone on this thread) criticize with those people who defend such behaviour? I suppose that some confusion will be inevitabel when PUA/SC should indeed have become the umbrella term for dating advice for men. But that doesn’t make this clustering fair, just like it’s usually not fair to assume that modern feminists are identifying with the SCUM manifesto.

As for the second part –

That’s because risk-management is more important than opportunity-creation.

I think that very much depends on the situation. And particularly *if* that should the case in any given specific situation, there should be more general appreciation for those who manage to create opportunities under those circumstances.

From what I recall, you seemed very interested in risk-management when the issue was about sparing men the risk of being called creeps, even though most men in those situations had control over when they wanted to take that risk.

I’m not sure what conversation you refer to, but my general position on this is I don’t think anyone in specific situations in which he or she feels creeped out should be forced to deal with the small print of the philosophical debate about this matter. But I do think that it is important to offset that with a general more balanced discourse about male sexuality. I do believe that such a discourse would make more men less defensive and better able to deal with specific situations in which they (or others) may have acted “creepy”. Maybe it’s easier understandable this way: Creepiness is generally understood to describe something men *are* rather than something they *did*, and that’s because of general (self-)perceptions about men and male sexuality. That is the problem, and it’s a discoursive, and, for the moment, rather abstract one, and not one that women who feel creeped out should have to deal with.

@AB I agree that there should be more outrage within the community about such behavior. I can’t speak for the other categories of SC members, but as for the “Freaks and Geeks” (to use Clarisse’s terminology) I can offer some perspective as to why there tends to be more defense against accusations rather than outcry against reprehensible behavior. First, a majority of the critiques your average F&G PUA (in my experience) will be exposed to are superficial, and argued out of bad faith. Until I read Clarisse’s book, I had not seen any critiques of the SC that actually showed more than a knee-jerk reaction, and actually put effort into understanding and properly analyzing ( note that I never saw yours, Indra’s, Hugh’s, or snow’s opinions until coming here).

Second, being in the SC as a F&G is like being in an abusive relationship: while you’re horrified at some of the things you hear and see, there is (seemingly) nowhere else you can go. For myself, I reached out a lot for help before the SC: when I could muster the courage, I spoke to my guidance counselor, to my mother, to my psychologist, and to my friends. The Seduction Community is the only place I received useful help from (I will note that other articles on the internet did a good job describing how to kiss, and how to read body language that indicated interest, but I did not find information that would help me be comfortable with initiating). I used to be one ofthose voices “mildly disagreeing” – you don’t dare speak out too loudly for fear of being excommunicated from your only life line to a normal social life. Now that I’m no longer dependent on the community, I no longer hang around the more toxic areas.

I feel like fair-minded analyses and discourse like those that occur here are a good step towards giving support for the mild voices to gain strength, as is the development of less-toxic SC sites like Mark Manson’s.

For the record, I actually wouldn’t agree that white lies (e.g. in routines or euphemisms) are on a spectrum with the lying in the criticized thread. There is a difference in kind, not merely in degree.

I also don’t have any experience of situations where women DON’T have total social control of the interaction, text and subtext

Hmmm. I think this attitude is not uncommon in the community. Perhaps one reason many PUAs don’t immediately see problems with certain techniques and attitudes is because they view themselves as non-threatening, and women as so socially powerful, that it’s difficult to imagine the potential for harm. This might make it difficult to recognize that other guys in the community might indeed be threatening, or that some women are not socially and sexually powerful.

Since Eurosabra mentioned what bothered him most in this discussion, I’ll do the same: I was bothered most by the fact that risk-management seemed to be inevitably more important than opportunity-creation, that there doesn’t seem to be – not just in this conversation – much appreciation for the initiating party in general.

Well, the discussion initially focused on rape, so it’s not surprising the risks started at the forefront. However, the discussion quickly turned to stuff like active disinterest and plausible deniability, where I agree with you that the risks need to be balanced with opportunity creation. And people seriously need to stop talking about opportunity-creation as if initiators are only giving or caring about opportunities for themselves, or that initiators don’t take risks with their own emotions.

To make an analogy to medicine, it sucks if you are constantly getting solicited by witch doctors who want to perform surgery on you without any medical training. It also sucks if nobody will be your friend unless you become a witch doctor and give them medical treatment and surgery without medical education, without knowing their medical history, without paying you, and without consent forms so they know the risks and limit your liability. Neither of those roles sound like fun. If it’s morally questionable to be a witch doctor, it’s also morally questionable to want people to be witch doctors to you. While I understand the need for critique of irresponsible witch doctors, sometimes it’s also important to see scrutiny to people who expect other people to be witch doctors towards them.

Pellaeon:

First, a majority of the critiques your average F&G PUA (in my experience) will be exposed to are superficial, and argued out of bad faith. Until I read Clarisse’s book, I had not seen any critiques of the SC that actually showed more than a knee-jerk reaction, and actually put effort into understanding and properly analyzing ( note that I never saw yours, Indra’s, Hugh’s, or snow’s opinions until coming here).

Yes, a large percentage of criticism of PUAs is misguided, blatantly biased, and inaccurate. Consequently, I often feel torn when I see a criticism of pickup that I partially agree with, and partially disagree with.

You see, today there might be a critique of pickup that is 90% correct. I would like to agree with the 90% I agree with, however, it’s problematic to let that 10% inaccuracy slide. You know why? Because if that 10% inaccuracy is allowed to slide, then all subsequent critiques of pickup will be skewed. Certain generalizations will become “truth”, not because they are based on anything more than a few data-points, but because they are simply repeated over and over until they become “facts.”

So, the first critique is 90% correct, but if the 10% inaccuracy, omission, or hasty generalizations are unchallenged, then the next critique might only be 80% correct. Then the next one will be 70% correct. Pretty soon, there is a snowball of bias and misrepresentation, until all accuracy and fairness is gone, and the result is like looking in a fun house mirror.

Many of you have already seen this process happen before. The opinions that many MRAs hold of feminists are warped (which is exactly why I started a blog to do feminist criticism right). The opinions that many feminists hold of MRAs are also warped.

As another instructive example, the opinions that many MRAs hold of PUAs are also warped. In some MRA places, like A Voice For Men, it became the “truth” that PUAs are spineless panderers to women, rewarding them for bad behavior, selling out their own masculinity, and practically in league with feminists. This warped view happened because MRA critics of PUAs held their political goals and biases above accuracy, and because there was no oversight.

Someone needs to hold PUAs accountable. Someone needs to be the PUA critics. But who holds the PUA critics accountable? Who watches the watchmen (or watchwomen, or watchpersons)?

In this case, for example, the thread went to 55 comments before anyone mentioned the internal criticism which occurred in that thread. And this isn’t just Clarisse’s post. Everyone in the thread missed it. Criticizing (or defending) PUAs was considered more important than reading and accurately representing the primary source material. Heck, even people here sympathetic to PUAs missed it until I called it out. I tried to just point out the omission, and not be an asshole and start pointing fingers, in hopes that in the next discussion of pickup, people will notice and discuss the counter-evidence.

Second, being in the SC as a F&G is like being in an abusive relationship: while you’re horrified at some of the things you hear and see, there is (seemingly) nowhere else you can go.

I once ran into a couple PUAs at a club who blatantly lied to a female friend of mine about being a part-owner of the club. I was disturbed by this, but I was curious about the guys, because I had only met a couple other PUAs. So I hung out with them and started talking about pickup. Then I hung out with them a couple other times, because I had no other wingmen at the time. However, I met some other PUAs who weren’t like that, and I stopped returning the calls of the lying PUAs because I realized I didn’t need them.

I feel like fair-minded analyses and discourse like those that occur here are a good step towards giving support for the mild voices to gain strength, as is the development of less-toxic SC sites like Mark Manson’s.

I agree. And I think it’s important for the mild voices to have some place to go. Dissenters within pickup need support. They need somewhere to go. They need to trust that if they agree with critics of pickup, they will not merely fuel a witchhunt that will eventually circle around to them.

Hugh Ristik was capable of easily locating several articles openly criticising feminists for linking Gunwitch’s crime to his attitudes and opinions as a PUA, and yet the only mitigating circumstance he’s presented here is that a couple of forum users made some very mild suggestions that maybe rape wasn’t 100% OK before they were policed by the rest of the community.

One PUA in the thread called it “disturbing” and another asked how it wasn’t “drunken rape.” Those criticisms could certainly be stronger, but I wouldn’t call them “mild.”

One would think that decent people would go “Whoa! A major PUA board has an admitted rapist teaching others how to most easily rape! What went wrong here and what can we do to change it?”, but it seems more PUAs are outraged by the idea that people would link the actions of one of them to his work as a PUA than by the idea of committing acts of predetermined torture towards out-group members (as long as those out-group members are female and the torture is socially acceptable). That really says a lot.

My initial reaction to the thread was disgust, frustration, and a feeling of betrayal by those gurus. Then I was a little heartened to see the internal criticism. And then I felt depressed because I knew that it would only be a matter of time before people started generalizing the attitudes in the thread across the entire community (despite Clarisse’s disclaimers), and I was not disappointed.

I think you once said that you don’t identify as a feminist, and you have your own beefs with feminism… but on the internet, a lot of the people who criticize feminists annoy you, or lead you to distrust them, or have attitudes you don’t agree with. That’s exactly how I feel about many criticisms of pickup, and that’s why I’m not always eager to jump on board, even when I mostly agree. See also my response to Pellaeon.

I will also point out that I and others have offered ideas about what is wrong. I hypothesize that the instructors are powerful, corrupt, and create an environment where dissent is difficult. I’ve also pointed out how guys with no support other than pickup will have trouble telling when the gurus are wrong. Eurosabra also makes some excellent points about how the community is organized “top-down,” where men lower in the hierarchy get very little respect or leverage.

We very much are discussing what’s wrong in the community. We may not be making the exact critiques that you want, but your lack of appreciation or interest in the critiques we are making is not inspiring of trust.

From what I can gather, Roissy/Heartiste is not representative of PUAs, Roosh is not representative of PUAs, Gunwitch is not representative of PUAs, and now Tyler Durden and the whole RSD is not representative of PUAs either. And those are just the specific names I remember.

Yes, those gurus are not representative of most PUAs, or men with PUA background. It’s similar to how Solanas, Daly, Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Radical Hub aren’t representative of feminists. (Heck, even Feministe is probably more extreme than people who ID as feminists and don’t post on the internet, just like the typical PUA forum is more extreme than most guys with PUA background.)

In both this movements, the radical leaders probably are outliers in terms of their beliefs and practices (Solanas and Gunwitch especially). Yet strangely, getting the masses to criticize their leaders is like trying to get blood from a stone. The leaders have to do something really bad, really publicly for them to attract internal criticism, and a lot of that criticism will be hedged. For instance, here is an interview with Mary Daly by a feminist who does criticize her, but it’s very, very hedged.

Nevertheless, do these leaders influence their movements? Does their status show anything about the attitudes in the rest of the movement? I’m sure the answer is yes, the leaders and their popularity do demonstrate something. But what exactly they demonstrate, and which of their attitudes are widely shared, is a complicated subject. I started to address the subject of complicity in a post series, but I tried to be cautious about overstating the relationship of moderate feminists to radical feminist bigotry:

The tough part of complicity arguments is that you don’t want to prematurely demonize the moderates/dissenters within a movement, because then they will close ranks instead of standing up against the corruption within the movement. I turned away from making those complicity arguments against feminists because I decided I was more interested in working with moderate and dissenting feminists.

At least feminists (to stay on your favourite topic) will sometimes argue that certain theories are misunderstood and certain statements are taken out of context, or that the actions of certain feminists should be seen in light of what they had to endure (which was pretty much always worse than what they subjected men to), or just something other than “those people don’t count”.

Feminists are just as guilty of saying that a problematic feminist is an exception. And I think when discussing PUAs, there are people who offer sophisticated arguments for why certain theories might be misunderstood, or why the meaning of them is ambiguous.

I think there are actually a lot of parallels to be made between pickup and feminism, with the corruption of some of their leaders, and the complicity, white-washing, internal fear of excommunication, sense of loyalty/debt, or self-censoring of dissent.

Same psychology; different movement. When feminists criticize PUAs for complicity with corrupt leaders, or for the leaders corrupting the masses, they should ask whether they would accept arguments of a similar form towards themselves.

That’s because risk-management is more important than opportunity-creation.

Thank you for putting this plainly. But I’m still a bit unclear on what exactly you mean.

Perhaps you mean that risk-management always trumps opportunity-creation. However, if that were true, then we should simply never try to create opportunities, because it’s too risky. We should stop driving, flying, or creating new medicines.

Yet this interpretation is absurd, so you mean something different. Presumably, you do believe in some balance of risk-management and opportunity-creation. Unfortunately, it’s unclear what you think this balance should be.

Especially if we’re weighing the opportunities you’re allowed to create for yourself up against the risks you’re allowed to subject others to.

You make initiating sound so self-centered. And some initiators indeed are that way. But you know what? Some are not. Some initiators are trying to create opportunities that are beneficial to both people, and some people who receive advances knowingly and intentionally enter situations where they consent to particular risks (and notice that I said “particular” risks, not any or every risk). Furthermore, initiating does have risks for the initiator, too.

I think what Sam and I are looking for is a coherent discussion of how to weigh particular benefits (for both people) against the related risks (for both people) and what sort of responsibilities either or both people might have.

And people seriously need to stop talking about opportunity-creation as if initiators are only giving or caring about opportunities for themselves, or that initiators don’t take risks with their own emotions.

Not centering these issues isn’t the same as ignoring them.

The issue hasn’t been one of a problem with opportunity-creation itself; it’s been of the need to know what kind of opportunity someone is trying to create, why they’re trying to create it, and how they’re going about creating it. That’s where the risk management comes in, and that’s why it’s been prioritized.

(Also, as a favor: “witch doctor?” As someone not entirely unfamiliar, on a personal basis, with Santería, I’d ask that you avoid that, and use “quack” when you mean “quack.”)

On this, though:

In this case, for example, the thread went to 55 comments before anyone mentioned the internal criticism which occurred in that thread. And this isn’t just Clarisse’s post. Everyone in the thread missed it. Criticizing (or defending) PUAs was considered more important than reading and accurately representing the primary source material. Heck, even people here sympathetic to PUAs missed it until I called it out.

Speaking for myself: no, I didn’t miss it. In fact, I was referring to one of those objections in #16 and #21.

I did, however, consider condemning an OP — not PUAs in general, but a specific post, with specific content, related to specific actions and specific recommendations — openly endorsing rape as a seduction practice to be far more important than explicitly noting, initially, the comparatively slight objections that were raised to it, especially considering that the first comment posted in this thread was one of blatant apologism.

And if you’ll recall, I even noted some objections that you managed to miss.

We might have different priorities. But portraying that as refusing to accurately represent the source material is hardly accurate.

Feminists are just as guilty of saying that a problematic feminist is an exception.

I think that this applies mostly when considering mainstream, moderate, White feminism. It isn’t so much the case when it comes to WoC feminism, transfeminism, feminist activism that’s heavily involved with sex worker rights (which isn’t necessarily synonymous with sex-positive feminism), or movements that have developed in reaction to these and similar developments, including Womanism. In fact, it’s usually in these areas where you’ll see heavy critiques of the mainstream sites, including Feministing and Feministe.

That’s really the difference between how feminism has handled these issues, and how the SC/PUA scene has: whereas feminism has developed those other groups, the SC hasn’t. And as such, it still relies mostly on repudiation and/or an attempt to “define away” techniques and individuals as being not representative of PUA.

But that doesn’t make this clustering fair, just like it’s usually not fair to assume that modern feminists are identifying with the SCUM manifesto.

But if Valerie Solanas was a feminist, there’s reason to call her a feminist. Same with Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin, who’re probably more mainstream.

I think that very much depends on the situation. And particularly *if* that should the case in any given specific situation, there should be more general appreciation for those who manage to create opportunities under those circumstances.

Not really. I’m getting sick of neurotypicals always imposing themselves on others and then act like they’re doing them a favour. If you create an opportunity, that’s it’s own reward. If you want to do social justice work, do social justice work. Don’t act as if your attempts to get laid are as praiseworthy as charity. Sorry, but this is a touchy issue for me, because a lot, possibly the majority, of people I’ve been in social contact with have made my life worse as a result.

I accept that when straight guys engage in “opportunity creation”, women like me will most often be collateral damage. There’s always a price to pay for not being neurotypical, and if you’re female (and therefore expected to always comfortable and be available for social services, especially to people with penises whenever they want it) that price gets magnified. I’m OK with that, and I even support it. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to let the people who make collateral damage out of me act as if they were doing everyone a favour.

I do think that it is important to offset that with a general more balanced discourse about male sexuality. I do believe that such a discourse would make more men less defensive and better able to deal with specific situations in which they (or others) may have acted “creepy”. Maybe it’s easier understandable this way: Creepiness is generally understood to describe something men *are* rather than something they *did*, and that’s because of general (self-)perceptions about men and male sexuality.

The problem is that the general attitude among men in regards to matters of sexuality is indefensible. It is among women too, though all studies I’ve seen consistently show it to be less than in men. Most men display some degree of rape myth acceptance, and most men are somewhat OK with invading people’s personal space. Autistic children who do not want to be hugged are marginalised for it, and from what I can gather, withdrawing from someone until you’ve put the same distance between yourself and them as is the standard in Scandinavia is considered hateful and bigoted among Americans.

People in general are nowhere near as tolerant about other people’s boundaries as they should be, and because both men and women (but especially men) tend to feel more entitled, and safer, to invade women’s personal spaces, make demands on their attention, and escalate physical contact, women bear the brunt of it, and men who aren’t at risk tend to choose the easiest way possible to deal with that: Ignore it, accuse women of being irrational, joke about it, and play the victim when their attention is not appreciated. Because most men know that what they’re doing is (too) socially acceptable, and they think they’re just being nice and non-threatening and creating opportunities etc.. Telling them that they’re good guys and what they’re doing is benevolent wont change that a bit.

I can’t speak for the other categories of SC members, but as for the “Freaks and Geeks” (to use Clarisse’s terminology) I can offer some perspective as to why there tends to be more defense against accusations rather than outcry against reprehensible behavior. First, a majority of the critiques your average F&G PUA (in my experience) will be exposed to are superficial, and argued out of bad faith. Until I read Clarisse’s book, I had not seen any critiques of the SC that actually showed more than a knee-jerk reaction, and actually put effort into understanding and properly analyzing ( note that I never saw yours, Indra’s, Hugh’s, or snow’s opinions until coming here).

That’s not really different than most other groups. Since we’re still comparing PUAs to feminists, I have to mention that feminists are usually given even less of a break, despite delivering considerably more internal criticism. Just for comparison, I’ve yet to see anyone suggest that PUAs are wrong for focussing on dating advice to men (criticise the actual advice, sure, but not the mere act of aiming it at men), but I have also yet to see a feminist site (or any aspect of feminism for that matter) dedicated to women that hasn’t at some point been attacked for not focussing on men.

And I’m not talking about rapid misogynists only. Hugh Ristik’s examples of feminist sites he thinks are moderate and fair have all been sites that have primarily focussed on men. It seems the only way to make an acceptable women’s rights movement is to stop focussing on women and centre it around men instead. Not to mention that the stuff PUAs are criticised for is usually explicitly about intruding on others, while most of the stuff I’ve seen feminists criticised for has been stuff that was no one else’s business, such as body hair.

Anita Sarkeesian got tons of hatemail (and more) merely for allowing others to voluntarily donate to a project she was working on if they were interested, allegedly because she was taking advantage of the poor people who chose to donate. At least the people who criticise PUAs for taking advantage of men with poor self-esteem are usually part of the demographic that’s being taken advantage of and are capable of giving better proof than mere suspicion, and even they don’t bombard PUAs with images of the graphic torture they want to subject them to.

I’m not saying that being bombarded with criticism made in bad faith isn’t frustrating, just that PUAs don’t really get the worst of it. And as a geek, I feel the same way about geek culture. Geeks tend to be incredibly entitled, often thoughtlessly replicating the very same patterns they thought were ‘oppressive’ when displayed by non-geeks in their past, while still seeing themselves as a persecuted minority. And not surprisingly, I spend a good deal of my time with geeks criticising said behaviour whenever I see it.

Second, being in the SC as a F&G is like being in an abusive relationship: while you’re horrified at some of the things you hear and see, there is (seemingly) nowhere else you can go. For myself, I reached out a lot for help before the SC: when I could muster the courage, I spoke to my guidance counselor, to my mother, to my psychologist, and to my friends. The Seduction Community is the only place I received useful help from (I will note that other articles on the internet did a good job describing how to kiss, and how to read body language that indicated interest, but I did not find information that would help me be comfortable with initiating).

I feel like fair-minded analyses and discourse like those that occur here are a good step towards giving support for the mild voices to gain strength, as is the development of less-toxic SC sites like Mark Manson’s.

I read Clarisse’s interview with Manson, and he seems OK. Except that the last time I checked, his idea that men had something specifically male inside them which made it crucial for them to have role models who were also male hasn’t been empirically backed up (quite the contrary), and it’s a dangerous idea to preach unfounded. But still, much better than the standard PUA.

First, a majority of the critiques your average F&G PUA (in my experience) will be exposed to are superficial, and argued out of bad faith.

And this response, from AB:

That’s not really different than most other groups.

To a degree, that’s true. But I have noticed differences, especially early on, and particularly from certain male feminists, or male feminist allies — most notably targeting peacocking. A lot of it came off as heavy gender policing; it’s one of the things that first got me thinking of peacocking as along the lines of genderfucking, because of the kinds of responses that came up. Almost always, those criticisms were focused on appearance, in combination with negging, as if it were a way of portraying PUAs as pseudo-gay gays, pretending to be “men.”

It’s one of the main reasons why I stopped engaging with anyone who advanced those kinds of critiques.

One PUA in the thread called it “disturbing” and another asked how it wasn’t “drunken rape.” Those criticisms could certainly be stronger, but I wouldn’t call them “mild.”

I was talking about other PUAs, on other sites, taking up this subject and criticising RSD, just as you once linked me to several articles specifically about why feminists and feminism were wrong, and why Gunwitch shooting a woman in the face didn’t matter to PUAs. Surely the idea that rape is an acceptable way to get laid is more controversial than the idea that Gunwitch actions may have been an expression of his view of sex and women?

My initial reaction to the thread was disgust, frustration, and a feeling of betrayal by those gurus. Then I was a little heartened to see the internal criticism. And then I felt depressed because I knew that it would only be a matter of time before people started generalizing the attitudes in the thread across the entire community (despite Clarisse’s disclaimers), and I was not disappointed.

Or perhaps you’re just overestimating how often any larger group is in 100% agreement. I didn’t expect everyone on that board to agree to begin with, and the fact that you find it so heartening and significant that a couple of lone voices didn’t seem to go along with it actually makes the whole SC sound more sinister, not less.

I will also point out that I and others have offered ideas about what is wrong. I hypothesize that the instructors are powerful, corrupt, and create an environment where dissent is difficult. I’ve also pointed out how guys with no support other than pickup will have trouble telling when the gurus are wrong. Eurosabra also makes some excellent points about how the community is organized “top-down,” where men lower in the hierarchy get very little respect or leverage.

Are you talking about instructors on RSD or PUA instructors in general?

We very much are discussing what’s wrong in the community. We may not be making the exact critiques that you want, but your lack of appreciation or interest in the critiques we are making is not inspiring of trust.

I don’t see you discussing what’s wrong as much as downplaying how much is wrong, painting the image of a bunch of poor innocent guys who just happen to express enthusiasm with the idea of raping women because evil instructors made them.

Yes, those gurus are not representative of most PUAs, or men with PUA background. It’s similar to how Solanas, Daly, Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Radical Hub aren’t representative of feminists.

Except that you mentioned having used advice from RSD and considering them OK in the past, and mentioned that one of your first (the first?) experience with PUAs were guys blatantly lying to a female friend of yours, after which you started hanging out with them to learn. Pellaeon mentioned being dependant on those types of PUAs too, and being afraid of speaking up until he no longer needed them. One of Clarisse’s first experiences with PUAs was the guy whose behaviour was borderline criminal (and may have entered into criminal territory if she hadn’t been assertive and possibly part of the in-group).

On the other hand, my first experience with a ‘professional’ feminist was in a book/magazine for girls where I was told that my body was my own, that I could play football or bake cookies depending on what I liked because there was no true way of being a ‘real’ girl, and that we should aim for more men to learn how to cook and keep a house, rather than encouraging women not to, because it was a useful skill for everyone.

My first experience with internet feminism was girls saying that ridiculously dressed and posed female characters in videogames and RPGs reflected an negative view of women, weren’t as empowering as the male commenters claimed, and tended to turn them off a product. Oh, and they also disagreed with each other, with one being in favour of a very authentic and realistic look and another using a babe in a chainmail bikini as her avatar, and openly discussed their differences in opinion, while a bunch of (primarily male and always heterosexual) commenters complained about prudery and feminazis.

In both this movements, the radical leaders probably are outliers in terms of their beliefs and practices (Solanas and Gunwitch especially). Yet strangely, getting the masses to criticize their leaders is like trying to get blood from a stone.

I have yet to meet a feminist who (assuming they knew about Solanas) didn’t condemn her views, except the ones who believe the SCUM Manifesto was a work of satire. And that’s despite the difference that her actions didn’t seem as connected to her ideas as Gunwitch’s, and that it was almost half a century ago.

Nevertheless, do these leaders influence their movements? Does their status show anything about the attitudes in the rest of the movement? I’m sure the answer is yes, the leaders and their popularity do demonstrate something. But what exactly they demonstrate, and which of their attitudes are widely shared, is a complicated subject.

I’d say looking at general support is good starting point. So far, we have at least one message board overwhelmingly in favour of rape (and I’m guessing the sites of the PUAs-who-aren’t-representatives-of-PUAs I mentioned earlier would count too), and almost no PUAs truly condemning it. On the other hand, the vast majority of feminists I’ve encountered talking about the subject have said that the extremists you mentioned were extremists, and have disagreed with their ideas.

Feminists are just as guilty of saying that a problematic feminist is an exception. And I think when discussing PUAs, there are people who offer sophisticated arguments for why certain theories might be misunderstood, or why the meaning of them is ambiguous.

An exception, yes. Not someone who doesn’t count.

I think there are actually a lot of parallels to be made between pickup and feminism, with the corruption of some of their leaders, and the complicity, white-washing, internal fear of excommunication, sense of loyalty/debt, or self-censoring of dissent.

I think the fact that some PUAs actually believe that movements made to address the issues of “People do not treat me as fully human because of my gender” and “I can’t stick my dick into as many pussies as I want to” respectively are in any way comparable already places the SC far beneath anything most of its followers would want to compare it with.

Same psychology; different movement. When feminists criticize PUAs for complicity with corrupt leaders, or for the leaders corrupting the masses, they should ask whether they would accept arguments of a similar form towards themselves.

If those ideas were actually as common, and (this is the part you always ignore) if there were any indication that the misandric feminists were implementing their ideas in real life as dramatically and systematically as misogynist PUAs claim to be doing. I’m not talking about being outspoken against porn, I’m talking about admitting to violently assaulting or sexually molesting men who view porn, for it to be comparable to the predetermined rape at least one guy on the RSD board admits to.

Thank you for putting this plainly. But I’m still a bit unclear on what exactly you mean.

Perhaps you mean that risk-management always trumps opportunity-creation. However, if that were true, then we should simply never try to create opportunities, because it’s too risky. We should stop driving, flying, or creating new medicines.

Yet this interpretation is absurd, so you mean something different. Presumably, you do believe in some balance of risk-management and opportunity-creation. Unfortunately, it’s unclear what you think this balance should be.

I think that everything else being equal, avoiding harm should take priority over achieving satisfaction. Especially because the consequences are usually more significant when it comes to harm, and a large portion of the harm tends to befall someone else. When guys talk about how they have to ignore it when women say no, because some women really mean yes, that’s a clear example of letting opportunity-creation trump risk-management. They’re basically saying that the (alleged) reduced opportunity for them to get laid trumps the risk of someone else getting raped.

You make initiating sound so self-centered. And some initiators indeed are that way. But you know what? Some are not. Some initiators are trying to create opportunities that are beneficial to both people, and some people who receive advances knowingly and intentionally enter situations where they consent to particular risks (and notice that I said “particular” risks, not any or every risk). Furthermore, initiating does have risks for the initiator, too.

Unless you’re deliberately picking women you don’t think other men have an interest in, and who seem lonely, because you want to give them a good experience, initiating is self-centred.

When I show up to a party because I know people will be happy to see me there, I’m being unselfish (though my long-term goals can of course be completely selfish). But when I show up to a party because I think I’ll be having fun there, it doesn’t really matter whether other people will enjoy my company or not, I’m still doing it for myself, and no one needs to appreciate me for being awesome enough to be the type of person who happens to enjoy parties.

I’m not Ayn Rand, I don’t feel compelled to praise people for benefiting themselves, even if others happen to benefit from it on the side.

And then I felt depressed because I knew that it would only be a matter of time before people started generalizing the attitudes in the thread across the entire community (despite Clarisse’s disclaimers), and I was not disappointed.

To come back to this point, which I forgot to address earlier (and especially in view of AB’s comments, deserves to be): this hasn’t happened.

The views of the RSD thread haven’t been generalized. Instead, two different, and separate, arguments have been advanced: (1) that the RSD thread does not represent an anomalous occurrence, even if it is an extreme one; and (2) that the SC, and many or even most PUA materials themselves, because of how the material is presented, may provide fertile ground for such attitudes to take root, develop, and even in some cases — such as the RSD thread itself — be embraced and protected.

If it were a matter of mere generalization, then fine, there’d be reason to be disappointed. But this is a case of increasing evidence, against which a stance of “this is not a pattern” becomes increasingly untenable.

As I just told Sam, I understand why opportunity-creation was not centered at the start of this particular discussion. However, in ethical discussions here, opportunity creation is almost completely ignored, not merely non-centered. Ethics is discussed as being about promotion of safety uber alles. Even if that conceptualization of ethics is correct, it is not widely held, so there is still a need to justify why safety trumps other considerations so strongly.

(Also, as a favor: “witch doctor?” As someone not entirely unfamiliar, on a personal basis, with Santería, I’d ask that you avoid that, and use “quack” when you mean “quack.”)

Sorry, I wracked my brain for a less-culturally loaded word, but I couldn’t think of one and needed to hit send. “Quack” is indeed what I was looking for :/

Speaking for myself: no, I didn’t miss it. In fact, I was referring to one of those objections in #16 and #21.

Yes, you did allude to the gay-shaming towards objectors. Nevertheless, you (and everyone else) failed to actually discuss the objections, particular the most important one: the one on the last page which called out the OP as sounding like “drunken rape.”

We might have different priorities. But portraying that as refusing to accurately represent the source material is hardly accurate.

I’m not saying you or anyone else were “refusing” to accurately represent the source material. I am not claiming intent here. I said that people “missed it”. Maybe they didn’t read to page 10. Maybe they got triggered, and had to stop reading. Maybe they skimmed the objection on page 10, but forgot about it because the rest of the thread was weighing more heavily on their minds. Maybe they were biased, but that can’t be whole story, because even people sympathetic to PUAs failed to highlight the relevant internal criticism.

Nevertheless, the outcome of the thread as a whole did have an important omission. A thread called out a particular PUAs for advocating rape, and the RSD community for supporting it. But isn’t it just a tiny bit relevant that a PUA in the thread also called out the behavior as rape? Here is part of his comment:

I seriously love what rsd teaches.. but when i ran across this…. how is this not considered drunken rape? Please explain..

A PUA does exactly what many of us here are wanting: he calls out corrupt and rapey behavior in the community. And instead of getting acknowledgment and discussion, he gets ignored.

I did, however, consider condemning an OP — not PUAs in general, but a specific post, with specific content, related to specific actions and specific recommendations — openly endorsing rape as a seduction practice to be far more important than explicitly noting, initially, the comparatively slight objections that were raised to it, especially considering that the first comment posted in this thread was one of blatant apologism.

What do you mean that “far more important”? It almost sounds like you are saying that moral outrage is more important than fairness to who you are criticizing. In other words, if someone (or some community) does something sufficient evil, then it’s not important to evaluate what they did fairly or to seek and acknowledge counter-evidence.

As I mentioned in my comment to Pellaeon, this attitude leads pretty quickly to witchhunts. Today, your thesis is more important than acknowledging the “slight” counter-evidence. Tomorrow, what other counter-evidence are you (general you) just going to forget, or not notice, or not discuss, because it’s “far less important” than your moral cause? If I point out that counter-evidence and omission, will you admit and incorporate that evidence into your theory, or will you dismiss it, and say that I am failing to recognize the real issues, which I should focus on if I am a “decent person” (to use AB’s term)?

I’m hoping that this isn’t actually the attitude you hold, but I want to point out the implications that are bothering me.

If instead you mean that the endorsement of rape as a seduction practice, and complicity with it in the community should be centered in the discussion, then I agree with you. Nevertheless, when dissent and call-outs of rape or other ethical malfeasance occur within the community, I think they deserve a prominent place in the discussion. They should not simply be ignored, trivialized, or relegated to a footnote.

Of course, it depends on the goals of the discussion. If the goal is to encourage PUAs to object to the consent practices in the community, then when PUAs do so, it’s worth highlighting and asking “why do some PUAs manage to call-out problematic practices, and how can we encourage more of it?”. If the goal is to demonize PUAs, then intra-PUA callouts are not important, and merely a distraction from the far more important subject, which is how horrible PUAs are.

That’s really the difference between how feminism has handled these issues, and how the SC/PUA scene has: whereas feminism has developed those other groups, the SC hasn’t.

As you point out, feminisms have gotten better with women of color, or transwomen. Feminism is still in the Dark Ages for how it treats men and men’s issues, despite a small number of exceptions (e.g. Clarisse, and sometimes Ozy, and a few others). To me, feminists seem just as defensive about feminism’s treatment of men as PUAs are about pickup’s treatment of women. But I think that’s a larger discussion that’s best left for another time.

I said:

And then I felt depressed because I knew that it would only be a matter of time before people started generalizing the attitudes in the thread across the entire community (despite Clarisse’s disclaimers), and I was not disappointed.

You replied:

To come back to this point, which I forgot to address earlier (and especially in view of AB’s comments, deserves to be): this hasn’t happened.

Instead of just telling me that my perception is wrong, perhaps you could ask me to produce evidence. I will refer to you to this comment by AB:

I don’t get why this is so shocking, or so different from what PUAs usually do. The vast majority of PUA material seems to be aimed at reducing the chance that the target will say no to sex (rather than making the target enthusiastic about sex), even when the target would really prefer to not have sex.

I very much do perceive this comment to generalize the attitudes in the thread across pickup in general.

Clearly, we have different perceptions of what is going on in this thread. And that’s fine.

I understand why the promotion of rape, and the complicity of some PUA instructors and community members is most interesting to you in the thread. I did not have much to add to that subject that I was comfortable saying here, given that the generalizations had already started. To me, the omission of an intra-PUA callout of rape was glaring, and I am trying to make sure you understand why I place such a high priority on it being acknowledged, and why I feel that it’s very much on-topic. Acknowledging such a callout isn’t just a matter of fairness and accuracy; I think it’s also important to examine those callouts and how to encourage more of them in order to effect change.

Instead, two different, and separate, arguments have been advanced: (1) that the RSD thread does not represent an anomalous occurrence, even if it is an extreme one; and (2) that the SC, and many or even most PUA materials themselves, because of how the material is presented, may provide fertile ground for such attitudes to take root, develop, and even in some cases — such as the RSD thread itself — be embraced and protected. […] But this is a case of increasing evidence, against which a stance of “this is not a pattern” becomes increasingly untenable.

If you put it like that, then I agree with you, and I would be quite happy to talk about those patterns in an environment where intra-community callouts are acknowledged rather than omitted, where people acknowledge counter-evidence, and where people aren’t also generalizing the attitudes in that thread to the entire community. In other words, an environment where I feel the discussion will proceed fairly and that my contributions won’t merely be twisted into ammo. Many times, this blog is such an environment, but in this thread, it was not.

Seeing patterns doesn’t just mean seeing problematic patterns in the community, it should also lead us to recognize the pattern of intra-community dissent, including callouts of rape.

I have to help a friend move some things, but I wanted to get a couple of points down before I forgot. Memory issues and all. So:

Nevertheless, you (and everyone else) failed to actually discuss the objections, particular the most important one: the one on the last page which called out the OP as sounding like “drunken rape.”

For which I gave an explanation.

It’s also true, however, that you’re leaving out a vital piece of information regarding that objection:

Date of the original post: Dec. 13th, 2010.
Date of that objection: May 14th, 2011.

One year, five months. That’s how long it took for that objection to show up.

And your original comment —

In this case, for example, the thread went to 55 comments before anyone mentioned the internal criticism which occurred in that thread. And this isn’t just Clarisse’s post. Everyone in the thread missed it. Criticizing (or defending) PUAs was considered more important than reading and accurately representing the primary source material.

— certainly is not suggestive of a particular response. It’s suggestive of not having read the thread, or noted the objections, at all, and the phrasing at the end certainly does suggest intent.

As far as the generalization point:

Instead of just telling me that my perception is wrong, perhaps you could ask me to produce evidence.

I didn’t simply say that your perception was wrong — I argued that something else was going on. Taking it out of context like that changes the character of the statement, and only then does it become an invalidation of your perspective.

Date of the original post: Dec. 13th, 2010.
Date of that objection: May 14th, 2011.

Hmmm, I didn’t notice that. Good thing we have multiple eyes on this.

– certainly is not suggestive of a particular response. It’s suggestive of not having read the thread, or noted the objections, at all, and the phrasing at the end certainly does suggest intent.

OK, I understand your objection to that phrasing, so consider it retracted. I won’t claim any particular intent or negligence behind the omission, but it’s still an omission that I feel needed to be corrected.

I didn’t simply say that your perception was wrong — I argued that something else was going on. Taking it out of context like that changes the character of the statement, and only then does it become an invalidation of your perspective.

I still feel that the attitudes in the RSD thread were generalized to the rest of the community, and I’ve provided the comment which does so. You are correct that the more sophisticated critiques are present in this thread, but the less sophisticated ones tend to distract me from engaging with them.

However, in ethical discussions here, opportunity creation is almost completely ignored, not merely non-centered. Ethics is discussed as being about promotion of safety uber alles.

I think that this is because opportunity creation is phrased similarly: not as über alles, but as a dicto simpliciter. When presented with that, taking a full-spectrum approach to risk management is the only reasonable response, and for the reasons given by AB, above. Simply put, when people creating opportunities are less selective about when they do and don’t create them (and how, and why, and with whom), those who might be at risk of harm must take more aggressive steps to manage the increased risks that result.

Furthermore, it isn’t as if methods of forming a basis upon which opportunity creation explorations could be pursued were not suggested; that was the entire reason for my advancing the argument about, and explaining the framework for, being able to handle the social environment and recover from unexpected occurrences. It’s also, again, why I’ve used the word “proceptive,” to emphasize that opportunity creation is not one-sided.

Unfortunately, however, it seems that you did not pursue these options.

What do you mean that “far more important”? It almost sounds like you are saying that moral outrage is more important than fairness to who you are criticizing. In other words, if someone (or some community) does something sufficient evil, then it’s not important to evaluate what they did fairly or to seek and acknowledge counter-evidence.

I mean that when the choice is between these two statements —

1. “People should note that out of all of the comments in this thread, there are a small number of people who have raised objections, and one who asked a question naming this what it is. Also, this is horrendously wrong, and should not, under any circumstances, be done, to anyone,” and

2. “This is horrendously wrong, and should not, under any circumstances, be done, to anyone. Later on, maybe we can talk about the few people who piped up, but since most didn’t, that needs to be said, and said clearly, and without qualification.”

— I’m going to take the second one.

But that relates to this:

I understand why the promotion of rape, and the complicity of some PUA instructors and community members is most interesting to you in the thread.

Because no, I’m not sure that you do understand why.

Maybe this isn’t fair in a logical argument. Maybe it isn’t fair when it comes to counter-evidence. But we’re talking about someone openly endorsing rape, here, and yes, moral condemnation of overt rape advocacy is more important than overriding it to note comparatively trivial objections mounted against it. That people fail to do so is one of the reasons why this kind of thing persists. And in fact, that kind of strong condemnation is one of the things that shows the people who mounted those trivial objections that they weren’t alone in thinking what they did, that they were right in their beliefs, and that, at least outside, they have support.

People who saw what they saw. And people who can say what they weren’t able to say.

Now, if you’re talking about rooting these people out from the inside, that’s a different thing, and it has to be handled differently: extracting good people, and isolating the bad ones — that’s tricky work, and it takes planning and coordinated effort. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. If anything, this is about showing those objectors, and others of their kind, that there might, just might, be a safe harbor if they wanted somewhere else to go.

And yes, you’re right, this kind of thing could lead to full-scale condemnation of the SC — if these condemnations don’t come from people like us. If we’re unwilling to take this stance against it, there’s no reason for people to hope. No reason for people to believe that the community will ever police itself for the better. No reason to believe that it will improve, and every reason to believe that those trivial objections will remain trivial, and likely become less and less.

Faith needs reasons, Hugh. Even gods die without them, and the SC has a far less illustrious pedigree.

With that, I think that I’ll defer on addressing any other points, given that it may alter some perspectives.

you have an interesting defintion of “selfish”. In my understanding, something is selfish if it is, without special circumstance, or just cause, disproportionally or even only motivated by self-interest. Assuming consent, my (assumed) wanting to get laid necessarily requires a woman having the same interest in getting laid by me. Are we then both selfish because there’s gratification in it for both of us? But even so, wouldn’t the one initiating be *less* selfish that someone who let others create opportunities for gratification for himself?

If you create an opportunity, that’s it’s own reward. If you want to do social justice work, do social justice work. Don’t act as if your attempts to get laid are as praiseworthy as charity. Sorry, but this is a touchy issue for me, because a lot, possibly the majority, of people I’ve been in social contact with have made my life worse as a result.

I’m sorry to hear that. And I understand if it is a touchy issue, it is also a touchy issue for me, although from the other side – as you may or may not have gathered from previous threads, I was, for (still) most of my adult life pretty much dysfunctional when it came to interactions with women. And as I explained in detail in the masculinits threads, a big part of that was caused by a feeling that male sexualiy is latently sociopathic and best be avoided. It’s not a healthy attitude towards oneself, as, I hope, particularly given your reply to Palleon, you’ll understand.

I think that everything else being equal, avoiding harm should take priority over achieving satisfaction. Especially because the consequences are usually more significant when it comes to harm, and a large portion of the harm tends to befall someone else. When guys talk about how they have to ignore it when women say no, because some women really mean yes, that’s a clear example of letting opportunity-creation trump risk-management. They’re basically saying that the (alleged) reduced opportunity for them to get laid trumps the risk of someone else getting raped.

But nothing is ever ceteris paribus in real life, is it? And I don’t think it’s fair to always counter “opportunity creation” with “risk of rape”. It’s like mentally jumping from one end of the interaction, like saying hi to someone (opportunity creation) to the other and assuming the worst about it. With respect to your example, though, when there’s a risk of rape – like, in the case of an assumed token no with respect to sex, of course the “token no” arguemnt is absurd. When the stakes are high, the responsibilities are high.

Just to illustrate that there is also another side to that question that’s not about rape or last minute resistance, a couple of times now, girls have complained to me (later) about my not being sufficiently aggressive in light of what I assumed to be hesitation to further escalation (usually with respect to not kissing them when they wanted me to).

I think that this is because opportunity creation is phrased similarly: not as über alles, but as a dicto simpliciter. When presented with that, taking a full-spectrum approach to risk management is the only reasonable response, and for the reasons given by AB, above.

it’s reasonable to always assume the worst possible outcome when presented with a general argument because, well, (mostly) men and male sexuality? Am I reading you right?

Because that assumption is where the problem starts, in my opinion. As with “creep”, I don’t think there should be an individual burden to consider this in any specific situation. But for a general discussion about gender, the problems of such a position should be apparent.

it’s reasonable to always assume the worst possible outcome when presented with a general argument because, well, (mostly) men and male sexuality? Am I reading you right?

No, you’re not.

I didn’t say anything about assuming the worst possible outcome, only that risk management elevates as consideration of the conditions of opportunity creation decreases. And my argument wasn’t specific to men or male sexuality at all; in fact, I didn’t mention either one. The same argument would apply to any act of opportunity creation, including industrial and military, so long as an a dicto simpliciter argument is involved. That’s what makes AB’s point solid: it’s a specific example of a highly generalizable situation, and not remotely restricted to het sexual interactions.

There’s this little thing involving some relatively non-poor guys in the United States, and some paper in November, that relates to it just a wee bit, really. Might have been getting some media attention here and there. I think that some bespectacled baker’s movment (OcuPie, I think?) might have addressed the idea from time to time, too.

Both of those should show: this is an individual burden, like it or not. And when it comes to that, gender isn’t immune.

I was talking about other PUAs, on other sites, taking up this subject and criticising RSD

PUAs are other sites might have other things to do rather than reading RSD forums and policing them. A forum is more like an internal community, rather than a blog that presents material to the world. Also, PUA dissenters might note the callout on page 10, and feel they have nothing to add. It would indeed be nice to see PUAs on other sites criticize RSD, but I understand why they aren’t in a rush to get bullied by RSD’s followers.

There are lots of injustices in the world. Becoming an activist against them is a personal choice.

Except that you mentioned having used advice from RSD and considering them OK in the past

Yes, but the majority of RSD writing I’ve read is feel-good, social skills stuff, not like that original post.

and mentioned that one of your first (the first?) experience with PUAs were guys blatantly lying to a female friend of yours, after which you started hanging out with them to learn. Pellaeon mentioned being dependant on those types of PUAs too, and being afraid of speaking up until he no longer needed them. One of Clarisse’s first experiences with PUAs was the guy whose behaviour was borderline criminal (and may have entered into criminal territory if she hadn’t been assertive and possibly part of the in-group).

Well, it’s quite possible that PUAs indeed have an above-average rate of liars in their population. What I object to is the notion that pickup in general is deceptive.

And that’s despite the difference that her actions didn’t seem as connected to her ideas as Gunwitch’s, and that it was almost half a century ago.

Her actions didn’t seem connected to her ideas as Gunwitch’s? Do you actually have evidence? According to her Wikipedia article, she felt that Andy Warhol had too much “control” over her life. In the SCUM Manifesto, revolting against male control in violent ways is a large theme. I see a connection.

But really, the there are only two people who know how much Solanas’s and Gunwitch’s actions were connected to their philosophies: those parties themselves.

On the other hand, the vast majority of feminists I’ve encountered talking about the subject have said that the extremists you mentioned were extremists, and have disagreed with their ideas.

Well, I’m glad, but in my experience, the percentage of feminists who explicitly disclaim the entire coterie of Solanas, Daly, Dworkin, and MacKinnon without being prompted is practically zero. And the percentage who criticize all of those feminists on the grounds of their misandry (not just transphobia or racism, in the case of Daly) is even lower.

If you are talking about criticizing one or two of those figures when prompted, then yes, feminists do a better job. But then we should compare to cases where PUAs are prompted to criticize other PUAs, instead of looking at situations where they fail to self-police. It’s not difficult to find cases of feminist communities failing to self-police.

If those ideas were actually as common, and (this is the part you always ignore) if there were any indication that the misandric feminists were implementing their ideas in real life as dramatically and systematically as misogynist PUAs claim to be doing. I’m not talking about being outspoken against porn, I’m talking about admitting to violently assaulting or sexually molesting men who view porn, for it to be comparable to the predetermined rape at least one guy on the RSD board admits to.

There isn’t an exact parallel, but there are plenty of examples of feminists doing violent things, advocating violence, or supporting other people who do so. I wrote a long section of examples, but I am snipping it out because I don’t want this discussion to focus so much on feminism.

I will instead note that there are reports of feminists committing rape. I’ve heard some from male survivors, and there is also this heartbreaking video (trigger warning!) by a lesbian woman raped by a feminist. Is there a pattern here? Should we start asking what features of feminism might attract abusive personalities? Who knows.

When guys talk about how they have to ignore it when women say no, because some women really mean yes, that’s a clear example of letting opportunity-creation trump risk-management.

With that example, I would agree with you. In fact, you may note that I have taken a long and consistent stance that ignoring “no” is unjustified. Also, Sam has explicitly stated agreement with this example in the past.

If we look at other examples, such as the risk and opportunity-creation of something like active disinterest, then I think the picture is much muddier.

They’re basically saying that the (alleged) reduced opportunity for them to get laid trumps the risk of someone else getting raped.

Maybe, or may they are instead saying that the increased opportunity for both people to get laid is acceptable, and that if she really means “no,” she can just be clearer about it, so they actually aren’t putting her at risk. This reasoning is WRONG and misguided for a whole host of reasons. But I think it’s important that we confront the reasoning that destructive PUAs actually hold and slay it.

Unless you’re deliberately picking women you don’t think other men have an interest in, and who seem lonely, because you want to give them a good experience, initiating is self-centred.

When someone initiates, they take an emotional risk, and they give someone else a sexual opportunity, saving the other person from having to initiate. This is a form of labor, and it’s a good thing… sometimes, at least. Giving someone a sexual opportunity can indeed benefit them sexually, and also contribute to their mental health. And it can lead to a relationship that is mutually beneficial.

This does not mean that all initiating is beneficial, or that there aren’t common practices that initiators should change. I agree with you that certain changes to the common behavior of initiators would be beneficial; we may differ on how to judge people exhibiting those behaviors in the present, who haven’t yet gotten the memo about why what they are doing puts other people at risk.

When I show up to a party because I know people will be happy to see me there, I’m being unselfish (though my long-term goals can of course be completely selfish). But when I show up to a party because I think I’ll be having fun there, it doesn’t really matter whether other people will enjoy my company or not, I’m still doing it for myself, and no one needs to appreciate me for being awesome enough to be the type of person who happens to enjoy parties.

Perhaps you have a false dichotomy here. Can’t you go to party a where you know people will be happy to see you, and because you think you will have fun there? If you are visibly having fun at a party, doesn’t that make the party more enjoyable for others… even if your conscious goals are merely selfish? And even if your goals are selfish, perhaps you giving and RSVP for the party helps make it actually happen.

Hosts may not be happy with all their party-goers, but hosts depend on some party-goers attending their parties. Despite some antisocial behavior by party-goers, the general practice of people attending parties is beneficial to hosts and other party-goers, even if the motivations of party-goers are primarily self-centered. Likewise, while no one particular initiator is God’s gift to others, and many particular initiators have problematic behavior, the general practice of people initiating is an essential part of how many people (particular more passive or receptive people) find partners, and being able to find a partner is beneficial.

I will instead note that there are reports of feminists committing rape. I’ve heard some from male survivors, and there is also this heartbreaking video (trigger warning!) by a lesbian woman raped by a feminist. Is there a pattern here? Should we start asking what features of feminism might attract abusive personalities? Who knows.

Yeah, and I’m one such survivor, as I believe you know from some years ago when I was commenting at FC, which was also when I raised that last question, myself (and continue to do so, as a general question with regard to authorship). But that’s also why the way that you’re bringing it up here does not sit well with me.

“Who knows”?

Was that an accidental thing, or did you mean to treat survivors as rhetorical flourishes, in order to counter the earlier points?

If you’re going to raise those issues, don’t dismiss them so casually. Otherwise, you’re also dismissing us.

Yeah, and I’m one such survivor, as I believe you know from some years ago when I was commenting at FC, which was also when I raised that last question, myself (and continue to do so, as a general question with regard to authorship).

I remembered that it was someone posting at FC, but I didn’t remember that it was you.

“Who knows”?

Was that an accidental thing, or did you mean to treat survivors as rhetorical flourishes, in order to counter the earlier points?

I meant the exact relationship between feminism and abusive personalities, and the prevalence of abusive attitudes within feminism is unclear, but there is some sort of relationship that deserves further discussion. I apologize for my choice of words.

While we are both aware that some feminists do commit abuse, I (speaking for myself) would disagree with a claim that abuse isn’t all that different from what feminists generally do. I am hoping that this same consideration can extend to PUAs.

Clearly, we need a way to discuss how abusive practices in a community might be related to its philosophy and politics, without necessarily generalizing those practices across the entire community or arguing that they are widely condoned in that community. I’m not sure what’s the best way to approach this subject.

PUAs are other sites might have other things to do rather than reading RSD forums and policing them.

But they don’t have other things to do than reading feminist sites and policing them?

Also, PUA dissenters might note the callout on page 10, and feel they have nothing to add.

You don’t seriously believe that? “A guy made a dissenting comment on page 10 which I agree with, so there’s absolutely no reason to pop in and support him against the dozens of guys who’re policing him”, really?

It would indeed be nice to see PUAs on other sites criticize RSD, but I understand why they aren’t in a rush to get bullied by RSD’s followers.

But they don’t mind getting bullied by feminists? Perhaps you should re-consider just how powerful and influential the feminists you go out of your way to criticise are, for them to receive such massive criticism as they do.

Well, it’s quite possible that PUAs indeed have an above-average rate of liars in their population. What I object to is the notion that pickup in general is deceptive.

I haven’t seen any pickup advice that wasn’t. But more to the point, I’m saying that if this is the first kind of pickup all of you experienced (and unlike with feminism, it didn’t seem to be because someone else cherry-picked the most offensive parts for you in order to explain why it was bad), perhaps that’s an indication of a larger trend?

Well, I’m glad, but in my experience, the percentage of feminists who explicitly disclaim the entire coterie of Solanas, Daly, Dworkin, and MacKinnon without being prompted is practically zero. And the percentage who criticize all of those feminists on the grounds of their misandry (not just transphobia or racism, in the case of Daly) is even lower.

No, most feminists don’t go out of the way to dwell excessively on the fact that decades ago, when society was even more patriarchal, some feminists became extremists as a result. But in my experience, more of them are willing to point it out when something as extreme as that RSD conversation takes place right before their eyes.

There isn’t an exact parallel, but there are plenty of examples of feminists doing violent things, advocating violence, or supporting other people who do so. I wrote a long section of examples, but I am snipping it out because I don’t want this discussion to focus so much on feminism.

You haven’t yet provided examples of feminists actually doing these things, and the last examples you gave me of feminists promoting the extermination of men could mostly be boiled down to “Why can’t men leave us alone?”. Individual feminists, just as the rest of the population, will sometimes commit crimes, but so far, we have yet to see a female Marc Lépine or George Sodini.

I will instead note that there are reports of feminists committing rape. I’ve heard some from male survivors, and there is also this heartbreaking video (trigger warning!) by a lesbian woman raped by a feminist. Is there a pattern here? Should we start asking what features of feminism might attract abusive personalities? Who knows.

And yet, I haven’t seen them get ideological support from any mainstream feminist site. A poster at Manboobz (Manboobz, which is frequently cited by anti-feminists as one of the worst and most misandrist feminist sites in existence, and which many people got offended that NSWATM linked to) named RubyHypatia once said that she found the idea of men getting raped in prison funny. Immediately, the regulars disowned her. No one spoke a kind word to her, everyone (except the MRA trolls) condemned her, and it was made clear that she wouldn’t be welcome in the community before changing her attitude.

She tried to clarify that she was only talking about evil people (of both genders) who deserved it, and every time, she was met with the same answer: No one deserves to get raped. She was never banned or censored, but the regulars kept up their vocal disagreement until she disappeared from the thread, and when she came back days later to make an unrelated comment in a different thread, she was immediately asked if she still believed prison rape was funny, and the condemnation continued. Eventually, it slowed down a little, because it wasn’t feasible to have every conversation where she turned up derailed into being about her, but it never ceased completely. Today, whenever she comments, all the regulars will ignore her, except to make the occasional negative remark to show her that she’s unwelcome, and inform potentially ignorant outsiders why she receives the treatment she does.

David Futrelle even went against his own policy of only blogging about misogyny (and cats) to make an article about the Catholic priest who said that in a lot of cases of priests having sex with children, the youngster is the seducer, because it was so horrible, even though the priest seemed to be talking mostly (or exclusively) about male victims. I believe he also wrote about the time The Amazing Atheist deliberately tried to trigger a male rape victim who’d been raped by a woman (though TAA believed it was the other way around). And again, this is Manboobz. From the comments of your FC regulars, you’d think it was the devil’s personal web-page.

I also seem to recall hearing about a thread, possibly at Feministe, where at least one of the commenters admitted to having raped a guy. But she wasn’t congratulating herself with it, she said that she didn’t realise it was rape because she’d been brought up to believe that men were always horny, so when he said no, but didn’t repeat it or object when she crawled on top of him, she didn’t consider that she was hurting him. In fact, I’ve heard more than one woman say that before she was set straight by other feminists, she bought into the myth that men can’t get raped, and I’ve heard of men who said feminists were the first people they met who classified what had happened to them (the men) as rape.

I’m not saying it’s universal, but from what I’ve seen and heard from actual feminists, I’d say the tolerance of sexual abuse of men is lower within most feminist communities than outside of them. I think that if feminism was one of the major proponents of the idea that sexual coercion was OK, or that men couldn’t really get raped, it would be a different case. But the thing is, every time I’ve seen feminists being criticised for something like that, it’s quite obvious that they’re not really being criticised for doing it any more than the average population, they’re being criticised for doing it at all (even if far less frequently than the norm), and/or not dedicating all of their waking hours to stopping it.

Feminists are being held to higher standards, plain and simple. Hence why your example of a reasonable and moderate feminist (i.e. women’s rights) site is one that is dedicated to the issues of men above those of women. That’s not moderate, that’s closer to saintly. It’s not wonder so many feminists fail to live up to your demands. In contrast, my experience says that a good deal of men, possibly even the majority, are more moderate than PUAs, and find many PUA tactics dishonest, immoral, or just sleazy. Just because you can find examples of PUAs who aren’t rape-supporters, or feminists who are, doesn’t mean the respective prevalences are irrelevant.

With that example, I would agree with you. In fact, you may note that I have taken a long and consistent stance that ignoring “no” is unjustified. Also, Sam has explicitly stated agreement with this example in the past.

If we look at other examples, such as the risk and opportunity-creation of something like active disinterest, then I think the picture is much muddier.

The thing is, I’m not sure I’m willing to trust people with something like active disinterest, negs, or freeze-outs, if said people can’t even understand the problematic aspects of (to paraphrase Louis CK) raping someone on the off chance that hopefully they’re into it. It doesn’t help that a lot of PUA sites present the techniques as being specifically about making the target insecure, and the rest seem to predict a behaviour in the target which is in line with insecurity, even though it’s presented as something different (e.g. “If the target is really confident, she’ll start chasing after you, even though she initially had no interest in you, just to prove her attractiveness to you, because that’s how people women who’re comfortable with themselves behave”).

Maybe, or may they are instead saying that the increased opportunity for both people to get laid is acceptable, and that if she really means “no,” she can just be clearer about it, so they actually aren’t putting her at risk. This reasoning is WRONG and misguided for a whole host of reasons. But I think it’s important that we confront the reasoning that destructive PUAs actually hold and slay it.

Doesn’t really matter when it comes to the result. The idea that women are always the ones in control, even though all the outwards signs of dominance are displayed by the man, is massively problematic. It relies on a skewed perspective to begin with, where the least bit of female assertiveness is interpreted as a massive display of dominance, whereas male dominance is viewed as neutral, similarly to how women speaking up are often perceived as taking up more than their fair share of time talking, whereas equally talkative men are perceived as holding back and listening.

The reality, both underscored by the words of many women and shown in several studies, is that saying ‘no’ in these situations is already extremely hard for a lot of people (even men), and keeping it up after a someone (especially someone who’s larger and more heavily muscled than you, in a situation where you’re alone) has already ignored your first ‘no’ is nowhere near easy enough that you “can just be clearer about it”. Most of the people who ignore that reality do so because they have already chosen not to listen to the women who say they want their ‘no’ to be respected. The overlap between the “Women are so manipulative and hard to understand (so it’s OK not to listen to them)”-crowd and the “Women are falsely accusing men of rape left and right”-crowd indicates that we’re dealing with some of the same skewed perceptions, and that those perceptions are part of an overall ideology.

When someone initiates, they take an emotional risk, and they give someone else a sexual opportunity, saving the other person from having to initiate. This is a form of labor, and it’s a good thing… sometimes, at least. Giving someone a sexual opportunity can indeed benefit them sexually, and also contribute to their mental health. And it can lead to a relationship that is mutually beneficial.

Yeah, and someone who starts a business takes a financial risk and gives other people the opportunity to get a different and potentially better product/service than before. And someone who takes a job also runs the risk of it not working out, especially if they left a different job or chose their current job among multiple options, but they also give their employer a potentially valuable service. And someone who doesn’t take a job runs the risk of not getting a better offer and ending up broke, but also gives someone else the opportunity to get that job instead.

Most of our day-to-day interactions involves risks and potential rewards for ourselves and others, no matter what we do. Demanding special appreciation for it seems quite superfluous to me. I don’t expect you to show gratitude and appreciation for every woman who rejects you, even though she’s taking a risk (both of missing out on something good and of receiving negative reactions for it) and doing you a favour (in giving you the chance to find someone you’re more compatible with and not waste time on her).

Perhaps you have a false dichotomy here. Can’t you go to party a where you know people will be happy to see you, and because you think you will have fun there?

1. “People should note that out of all of the comments in this thread, there are a small number of people who have raised objections, and one who asked a question naming this what it is. Also, this is horrendously wrong, and should not, under any circumstances, be done, to anyone,” and
2. “This is horrendously wrong, and should not, under any circumstances, be done, to anyone. Later on, maybe we can talk about the few people who piped up, but since most didn’t, that needs to be said, and said clearly, and without qualification.”

Well, other people may have valid responses that are different from either of those.

When I got to the thread, I didn’t feel the need to explicitly state how wrong the behavior in the RSD thread was, and that it was rape. That was not under credible dispute. I did imply my condemnation by saying that the behavior was disgusting, and by highlighting the rape callout in the thread (implying that I agree with it). And I’m having my own internal reaction to the thread which I am not comfortable discussing here.

I felt that pointing out the callout in the RSD thread was relevant to fairly evaluating the level of complicity with rape in that environment, and important to at least acknowledge.

But we’re talking about someone openly endorsing rape, here, and yes, moral condemnation of overt rape advocacy is more important than overriding it to note comparatively trivial objections mounted against it.

I would not agree that noting counter-evidence or internal objections somehow “overrides” moral condemnation of rape in a community… as if these goals are opposed. I do not feel they are opposed. Actually, I think that trying to create political change within a community goes hand-in-hand with treating it fairly… unless the strategy is to rhetorically bludgeon people into submission and tell them they are supposed to like it because our cause is so important. Causes make excellent cudgels.

When I approach anti-rape advocacy, I would like to emphasize and fuel the dissent that already exists in the seduction community. One of the main strategies I would like to emphasize is the use of social proof. By highlighting the existence of dissident PUAs, we lend social proof to dissent. PUAs can see that other men who identify with pickup are dissenting, showing that they can, too, within their current identity.

That people fail to do so is one of the reasons why this kind of thing persists.

Perhaps another reason that it persists is that when moral critics appoint themselves as philosopher kings above notions of fairness, then their reach is limited. Communities of people aren’t enthusiastic about accepting critique from critics who aren’t even trying to be fair to them. Half-baked or partially-unfair moral criticism can actually be counter-productive, by teaching the community that critics are ignorant, power-tripping, and untrustworthy. This is exactly what’s happened with pickup, and why PUAs are so defensive towards ethical discussions (not just many PUAs being assholes).

And in fact, that kind of strong condemnation is one of the things that shows the people who mounted those trivial objections that they weren’t alone in thinking what they did, that they were right in their beliefs, and that, at least outside, they have support.

Strong condemnations are fine. In this case, they are entirely deserved. I don’t see any contradiction between strong condemnation, and recognizing the internal callout. Actually, adding in the voice of the callout makes the condemnation louder. I’m not saying that 50% of the original post and every comment here should be about the dissenting post; I’m trying to get it acknowledged at all, explain why I think it’s important enough to be more than a trivial footnote.

Now, if you’re talking about rooting these people out from the inside, that’s a different thing, and it has to be handled differently: extracting good people, and isolating the bad ones — that’s tricky work, and it takes planning and coordinated effort. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Why not talk about it here? Perhaps there are ways to offer support to dissident PUAs and help them develop their ideas, rather than trivializing their efforts.

If anything, this is about showing those objectors, and others of their kind, that there might, just might, be a safe harbor if they wanted somewhere else to go.

Safe harbor? Where exactly is there a safe harbor for a dissident PUA? Are PUAs supposed to sell out their community, and take shelter in another community where what PUAs generally do isn’t considered all that different from rape and coercion? Where fairness towards PUAs is viewed by some as an inconvenience in anti-rape activism? That doesn’t sound very safe to me.

And yes, you’re right, this kind of thing could lead to full-scale condemnation of the SC — if these condemnations don’t come from people like us. If we’re unwilling to take this stance against it, there’s no reason for people to hope.

When I take stances against the community, I am very selective about who I do it with, and which environments I do it in. Because even if condemnations do come from people like us, it can still lead to a full-scale condemnation towards the seduction community much broader than either of us would agree with… if we don’t ensure that our audience feels accountable to some basic ideas of fairness and accuracy. And a lot of the time, that’s true here, but this latest discussion does worry me. When it’s true that critics of pickup are being accountable and open-minded, then I’ll join in, but if I see a witchhunt starting, then I’m going not going to fuel it, I’ll try to call it out, and if necessary, head for the hills.

Faith needs reasons, Hugh. Even gods die without them, and the SC has a far less illustrious pedigree.

What can PUAs have faith in? If they abandon their old gods, which new ones can they trust to care for them?

And my argument wasn’t specific to men or male sexuality at all; in fact, I didn’t mention either one.

ok, could you point me to which of AB’s arguments you’re referring to? Because the last one I read about men and male sexuality.

AB, Hugh,

Well, I’m glad, but in my experience, the percentage of feminists who explicitly disclaim the entire coterie of Solanas, Daly, Dworkin, and MacKinnon without being prompted is practically zero. And the percentage who criticize all of those feminists on the grounds of their misandry (not just transphobia or racism, in the case of Daly) is even lower.

Well, I think, this may well be partly an online/offline divide. Offline, face to face, I have yet to meet a young(er) feminist who will say they actually believe in that stuff. It’s different with older femininsts, of course.

AB,

Most of our day-to-day interactions involves risks and potential rewards for ourselves and others, no matter what we do. Demanding special appreciation for it seems quite superfluous to me.

it’s not about “special appreciation”, just basic discoursive recognition. Like you did above in your reply to Paelleon, in a way. It felt really good reading that.

Especially because the consequences are usually more significant when it comes to harm, and a large portion of the harm tends to befall someone else.

@Hugh:

I get what you’re saying — or what you initially were.

It’s that by adding that “who knows” at the end, the impression one is left with is that those of us who have gone through that — who haven’t just been abused or raped by people who, coincidentally, were feminists, but who employed feminist ideas as part of the justification for their abuse or rape — are being used as chess pieces in someone else’s game.

If you don’t know how to address the subject, then fine, say so.

But don’t dismiss it casually. When people do that, they’re not being allies, even if they think they are, and survivors deserve better than that.

I felt that pointing out the callout in the RSD thread was relevant to fairly evaluating the level of complicity with rape in that environment, and important to at least acknowledge.

I have to agree with AB’s earlier point, here. I expected some amount of dissent; the RSD forums are comparatively large, and even in more extreme environments, I’ve seen less than 100% compliance with extreme positions. To suggest that this needs to be pointed out paints a darker picture of the SC than a person might initially have of it, and that’s worrying.

I would not agree that noting counter-evidence or internal objections somehow “overrides” moral condemnation of rape in a community… as if these goals are opposed.

“Overrides” in terms of priority, as should have been apparent from the two example statements. That doesn’t imply opposition.

Causes make excellent cudgels.

Yes, as I’m well aware. The same can be said of the cause of “moderation in all things.”

We’re simply using different strategies, Hugh.

Perhaps another reason that it persists is that when moral critics appoint themselves as philosopher kings above notions of fairness, then their reach is limited.

Good thing that I’m more of an Aristotelian, then, when it comes to the Ethics. Can’t stand Plato, really.

Why not talk about it here?

Because we’re not actually in a group, extracting people, and those actions haven’t become a main subject of discussion. As Pellaeon wrote, there’s an analogy to be drawn here with abusive relationships, and anyone who’s been involved with getting people out of abusive relationships knows that those discussions and interventions need to be handled the right way, and with people that you can trust. Otherwise, things go south quickly, badly, and with some truly ugly consequences. So that isn’t a discussion that I’d enter into lightly.

Safe harbor? Where exactly is there a safe harbor for a dissident PUA? Are PUAs supposed to sell out their community, and take shelter in another community where what PUAs generally do isn’t considered all that different from rape and coercion? Where fairness towards PUAs is viewed by some as an inconvenience in anti-rape activism?

No, they’re not.

But maybe with enough of this kind of support, they’ll see that they aren’t alone, that there are people willing to speak with their objections without wholesale equating what they do with rape and coercion, and who are willing to do this while giving their objections more than safe, token recognition — while calling it fairness.

I don’t want to go hardball, here, but seriously, this argument is getting old. I haven’t attacked the dissenters, or minimized them, or ignored them; as I mentioned, I even brought up ones that you didn’t. What I haven’t done is tokenized them in the way that you have, and I refuse to. That doesn’t come off as respect, at least to me. It comes off as using them as tools, much like what I brought up above with regard to survivors.

What can PUAs have faith in? If they abandon their old gods, which new ones can they trust to care for them?

You don’t think that these exchanges are being read by some, asking similar, but far less elevated, questions?

you have an interesting defintion of “selfish”. In my understanding, something is selfish if it is, without special circumstance, or just cause, disproportionally or even only motivated by self-interest.

Yes.

Assuming consent, my (assumed) wanting to get laid necessarily requires a woman having the same interest in getting laid by me.

Yes. Your selfish interest coincide with hers.

Are we then both selfish because there’s gratification in it for both of us?

You’re not acting selfishly in the sense that you’re prioritising your needs to an extent where they interfere with anyone else’s to a significant degree. You’re helping each other achieve mutual satisfaction for your own benefit. It’s no different than if she sold you an ice-cream. Both of you hopefully get something out of the transaction, but neither of you are doing it for the purpose of making the other happy.

But even so, wouldn’t the one initiating be *less* selfish that someone who let others create opportunities for gratification for himself?

If you feel your interests are best served by initiating, you initiate. If you feel your interests are best served by not initiating, you don’t initiate. Neither is inherently more or less selfishly motivated than the other.

I’m sorry to hear that. And I understand if it is a touchy issue, it is also a touchy issue for me, although from the other side – as you may or may not have gathered from previous threads, I was, for (still) most of my adult life pretty much dysfunctional when it came to interactions with women.

I don’t think anyone who’ve read the threads you’ve posted in could have missed that. But you’re mostly talking about internal feelings, whereas I’m talking about concrete demands made of me. I have a hard time respecting it because it seems like whenever women talk about boundary violations they’re subjected to, one or more guys always have to enter the conversation to make it about how bad it makes them feel when some women don’t feel safe with men, and therefore women need to stop talking about it.

And as I explained in detail in the masculinits threads, a big part of that was caused by a feeling that male sexualiy is latently sociopathic and best be avoided. It’s not a healthy attitude towards oneself, as, I hope, particularly given your reply to Palleon, you’ll understand.

No, but neither is it a healthy attitude to say that a group of people who’re keenly aware that they’re at a fairly high risk of being subjected to others trying to rape them (with some of them being enthusiastic enough about it to coach each other, knowing full well they’ll get away with it a lot easier than practically any other type of violent crime) need to stop being so openly concerned, angry, and frustrated about it, because it’s hurting your feelings.

Just to illustrate that there is also another side to that question that’s not about rape or last minute resistance, a couple of times now, girls have complained to me (later) about my not being sufficiently aggressive in light of what I assumed to be hesitation to further escalation (usually with respect to not kissing them when they wanted me to).

I fail to see the relevance, unless we’re back at the whole “respecting women is so haaaard, because sometimes an otherwise unacceptable behaviour could have gotten you laid”. It’s also impossible for me to reply to, because we’re livingin two different realities (which is part of the reason I don’t reply to you that often any more). For instance, you keep bringing up that utterly irrelevant survey about how most women don’t want men to ask before kissing, as if it somehow disproved anything. Considering that I prefer men not asking before kissing too (at least I think so, it’s never been an issue) and still vehemently disagree with practically everything you’ve said, it’s about as relevant to me as if you’d posted that black haired women were more common than blondes. And yet in your reality, it means something, I just can’t figure out what.

But even so, wouldn’t the one initiating be *less* selfish that someone who let others create opportunities for gratification for himself?

Just to add a point on this: I don’t think that you’re talking about selfishness, here, but about ego boundaries — about what defines “self,” and thus where the sources of actions lie. When someone focuses on initiating instead of having others create opportunities for them (assuming that initiating is a viable choice), that may indicate that they have a tighter ego boundary, and separation between self and world; and when they don’t, that they may have a looser one.

So, in that sense, and assuming that the may is in fact a do, the former would be “less selfish,” in that their ego boundary would include less, and the latter would be “more selfish,” in that it would include more. But that having been said, the “viable choice” qualification is important; the decision to initiate or not wouldn’t be sufficient on its own.

Just to address one point, which I wanted to consider further before coming to:

And I’m having my own internal reaction to the thread which I am not comfortable discussing here.

I’m not going to ask you to. But I do think that this probably accounts for some of the differences.

What I will say is this, from my own experience: knowing that this kind of thing goes on in one’s own community can be an incredibly difficult thing to countenance, especially if we find it coming from people that we once respected, or even in whom we placed our trust, especially if we still have friends there. Or memories that we don’t want tarnished.

I understand the desire to defend that. Deeply.

What I also understand, equally deeply, is the consequences that can arise from it. Which is why, even if it wasn’t directly my cause, there’s blood on my clothes that I refuse to wash out — because I need to remember. It’s why I mentioned Reyes, again; it’s because, personally, I knew someone very much like him. And because I didn’t intervene when I could.

The path you’re recommending: I took it. And I’ve been living with the consequences of that for almost two decades now. I’d prefer to spare others that consequence, if I could, both those who would end up following the course that I did, and those who suffered because of it.

Both of you hopefully get something out of the transaction, but neither of you are doing it for the purpose of making the other happy.

Of course, hardly anyone is doing hardly anything out of pure altruism. But, of course, as opposed to buying ice-cream, when I’m kissing someone, I’m *also* doing it *to make her happy*, and I’m certainly hoping that she feels the same way about kissing me.

No, but neither is it a healthy attitude to say that a group of people who’re keenly aware that they’re at a fairly high risk of being subjected to others trying to rape them (with some of them being enthusiastic enough about it to coach each other, knowing full well they’ll get away with it a lot easier than practically any other type of violent crime) need to stop being so openly concerned, angry, and frustrated about it, because it’s hurting your feelings.

I don’t know, I’m getting the impression you’re thinking of men’s problems as taking away some social share of mind from the problems that “really” matter. Now, I suppose that everyone will agree that my personal hurt feelings aren’t particularly important on the scale of social justice issues. So if they matter, they only matter as an exmaple for a general problem: and with respect to gender discussions in general, it often seems to me that there is a defined set of allowed male problems (PHMT), and everything outside of that set is considered part of the problem. That’s not really discourse. But I’m still hoping that more and more people will realize that women’s and men’s problems mostly aren’t separable issues, and cannot and should not be treated in isolation. But that also implies that those who hold the power of definition in those discourses accept rival outside perspectives to be included on par with other perspectives.

I fail to see the relevance, unless we’re back at the whole “respecting women is so haaaard, because sometimes an otherwise unacceptable behaviour could have gotten you laid”. It’s also impossible for me to reply to, because we’re livingin two different realities (which is part of the reason I don’t reply to you that often any more). For instance, you keep bringing up that utterly irrelevant survey about how most women don’t want men to ask before kissing, as if it somehow disproved anything. Considering that I prefer men not asking before kissing too (at least I think so, it’s never been an issue) and still vehemently disagree with practically everything you’ve said, it’s about as relevant to me as if you’d posted that black haired women were more common than blondes. And yet in your reality, it means something, I just can’t figure out what.

This is interesting. I’m not sure what different realities you’re referring to – I wonder if our realities aren’t potentially closer to each other’s than to that of other commenters given that we’re both from Europe and non-native English speakers. How can eyou not see how it is relevant to your point? When the risk is high (like in the last minute resistance case) the responsibility is high. But there’s also other cases, in which the risk for either party is relatively low – as with the example I mentioned. As for the kissing thing, it definitely means something. It means that you appear to prefer a behaviour that is higher risk than explicit communication, for both the initiator and yourself. And it means that you would prefer the initiator to act in a situation of higher relative uncertainty about your preferences. And yesterday you said that risk management always trumps opportunity creation. Just like with Snowdrop’s examples above about risk reduction and communication and his personal stories about kissing, I don’t quite understand how that goes together? How is that *not* relevant?

It’s that by adding that “who knows” at the end, the impression one is left with is that those of us who have gone through that — who haven’t just been abused or raped by people who, coincidentally, were feminists, but who employed feminist ideas as part of the justification for their abuse or rape — are being used as chess pieces in someone else’s game.

I thought it would be clear to anyone knowing my views that I very much would think that potential links between feminist ideas and abuse would be important to investigate (in another discussion than this one), and I never considered that someone would think that I might want to casually dismiss those potential links. Yet I agree that there are potential problematic implications of my use of “who knows,” which is exactly why I retracted it and apologized to you.

I have to agree with AB’s earlier point, here. I expected some amount of dissent; the RSD forums are comparatively large, and even in more extreme environments, I’ve seen less than 100% compliance with extreme positions. To suggest that this needs to be pointed out paints a darker picture of the SC than a person might initially have of it, and that’s worrying.

Well, I’m glad you admit the existence of dissent in the abstract. The original post did too, which was certainly helpful. But if we discuss concrete examples of abuse in the community, while merely mentioning abstract dissent, we will paint a very skewed picture of the community… especially when concrete dissent is actually present in the exact same thread. This troubles me, and it would also trouble PUAs we are trying to reach.

“Overrides” in terms of priority, as should have been apparent from the two example statements. That doesn’t imply opposition.

It’s possible that we could create a set of priorities, but I’m not sure why exactly there is a need to prioritize here. This isn’t Twitter. There isn’t a character limit. I’m not saying that 50% of the OP and 50% of every comment needs to be about PUAs calling each other out. There is plenty of space in this thread to condemn the rapey practices in that thread, and to also note the callout of rape and discuss its significance. And by discuss its significance, I don’t just mean noting its atypicality from the other responses. I also mean noting the pattern with the other rapey lay report in Confessions which was also called out as rape.

We’re simply using different strategies, Hugh.

Indeed. We both seem to agree that a certain rate of abuse exists in the seduction community, that it is widely ignored or condoned, that this state of affairs should be opposed, and that encouraging dissenters and the existence of safe spaces for them outside the community is important. Yet we seem to have different ideas about how to tie those goals together, and what sort of rhetoric to employ.

I don’t want to go hardball, here, but seriously, this argument is getting old. I haven’t attacked the dissenters, or minimized them, or ignored them; as I mentioned, I even brought up ones that you didn’t.

If you say those are your intentions, I believe you, but some of the things you have said have been painting a different picture to me. In this comment you refer to “comparatively slight objections,” which indeed sounded minimizing. In this comment, you say “moral condemnation of overt rape advocacy is more important than overriding it to note comparatively trivial objections mounted against it.” Your words literally were trivializing the objections.

Regardless of your intent, I do think these rhetorical choices would leave many PUAs highly defensive, or at best, pessimistic about being treated fairly or being able to find safety and support in this environment if they were to dissent from pickup.

As for your acknowledgement of dissent in comments #16 and #21: If I was to do it over, I wouldn’t have said that people were “ignoring” dissent in that thread in general, another remark that I’ve retracted. Nevertheless, your discussion of that dissent left out the big rape callout, which I maintain as germane to this thread.

I’m not going to ask you to. But I do think that this probably accounts for some of the differences.

What I will say is this, from my own experience: knowing that this kind of thing goes on in one’s own community can be an incredibly difficult thing to countenance, especially if we find it coming from people that we once respected, or even in whom we placed our trust, especially if we still have friends there. Or memories that we don’t want tarnished.

I’m glad that you recognize this. Condemning PUAs who do abusive stuff will obviously be a personal process for me, and this thread was not a safe space for it. Despite Clarisse’s disclaimers that many PUAs aren’t like the RSD thread, rather generalized views of the community were developing (like this one), along with AB saying that the RSD thread doesn’t seem all that different from what PUAs generally do, and you talking about how the community was getting worse.

You guys can explore uncomplimentary general hypotheses about the community, and that’s fine. But the resulting environment may not be an appropriate space to process my own condemnation of community practices in very much depth. After reading your last response to me, I hope that you will be able to empathize.

Even worse, I very much was getting a sense that my display of disgust and betrayal at the RSD thread wasn’t a sufficient display of outrage to prove I had my heart in the right place, in the eyes of some people here.

One would think that decent people would go “Whoa! A major PUA board has an admitted rapist teaching others how to most easily rape! What went wrong here and what can we do to change it?”

As if, by failing to give this predetermined appropriate response, I was not a “decent person.” And when you started to talk about your preferred response in this comment, I started to feel an implication that I was being expected to process my condemnation in this thread (beyond the condemnation I already gave) as a precondition to have my concerns recognized about accuracy, fairness, and the omission of the rape callout in the thread.

I brought up an omission in this thread of a fact which I consider very important, the omission of a callout for rape in a discussion about rape in the community and complicity with it. I was discouraged by the responses to me raising this issue. I perceived you and AB to trivialize the importance of discussing the callout, and to be looking down on me for raising that omission of it rather than having more appropriate responses to the RSD thread. If that’s not what you were doing, or not what you were intending, and I’ve conflated your words with AB’s, then we’ve been talking past each other.

But I do appreciate your understanding about why I am cautious about processing certain issues in this thread, and I hope I have been able to explain my reasons for making such a big deal about the rape callout in the RSD thread and wanting to introduce it into the discussion. I also feel that this particular subthread of discussion is getting a bit old, and I would be fine with leaving it here.

But if we discuss concrete examples of abuse in the community, while merely mentioning abstract dissent, we will paint a very skewed picture of the community… especially when concrete dissent is actually present in the exact same thread. This troubles me, and it would also trouble PUAs we are trying to reach.

And let me explain why having to point it out troubles me: the “more extreme environments” in which I’ve seen less than 100% compliance include lockup and white supremacist sites.

To have to highlight the existence of dissent in a PUA forum would be to suggest that is is worse than those environments. This goes to the priority point as well.

Your words literally were trivializing the objections.

My words were stating that the objections were comparatively minor, given the kind of condemnation that I have consistently stated, from the beginning of this thread, is needed. That isn’t the same as minimizing the objectors. It’s also worth noting that in #21, I advanced reasons for why that might have been the case, and that I also advanced the argument about the other members being the prime source of policing (noting that in #21, the dynamics of the thread were noted as a possible cause first, and the commentor’s views were noted as a possible cause in a parenthetical).

Nevertheless, your discussion of that dissent left out the big rape callout, which I maintain as germane to this thread.

Your repeated mention of this, though, is what I mean by the tokenization. I actually find the “why not just roofie them if you’re in such a hurry?” comment, which I noted in #63, to be just as representative, and it was posted earlier as well (Jan. 4, 2011). There’s only one reason to name a date rape drug in a comment responding to that OP: to describe the OP as advocating date rape.

(Correction to that comment, though: the actual text was “i have advice for you, instead of having to wait to find the drunk girls, just roofy them since yer in such a hurry!”)

Focusing on the comment that you are focuses only on a comment that phrases the objection in a specific way, and as representing the objectors in a specific way — even though both of these objectors are saying the same thing, and even though the other objector made the statement a full four months earlier. That’s pretty much the definition of tokenization: selecting one example, and the right example, so that it does the job.

WRT Thomas’ comment, I don’t have a problem with his reaction — I wouldn’t expect someone to stay calm when initially encountering this. And with AB’s comment, it wasn’t that the RSD thread was what PUAs generally do, it was that it wasn’t shocking, or so different from what PUAs usually do, phrased elsewhere as not surprising, and those are statements with which I don’t entirely disagree, especially given the type of PUA material that AB seems to have encountered (i.e., generally accessible to the public, on-line, and without cost).

And one of the reasons why I’m disinclined to disagree is precisely because of that parenthetical. What that suggests is that the connection isn’t between the thread and pickup theory, but between the thread and a noticeable percentage of those who are interested in acquiring and influencing it, which should be a matter of concern to those in the community.

And this is why I agree with what AB wrote, and you quoted:

One would think that decent people would go “Whoa! A major PUA board has an admitted rapist teaching others how to most easily rape! What went wrong here and what can we do to change it?”

And no, I’m not making any call on any “decent person” issue. But I will return to the ending half of my comment at #307, and say this:

Of course, hardly anyone is doing hardly anything out of pure altruism. But, of course, as opposed to buying ice-cream, when I’m kissing someone, I’m *also* doing it *to make her happy*, and I’m certainly hoping that she feels the same way about kissing me.

We’re probably not going to agree. To me, unless you dislike what you’re doing, there’s no reason to congratulate you for unselfishness. When my boyfriend asks me to come to a family gathering on his side of the family, even though I’m not much for it, he thanks me for doing it for his sake. When he asks me to the movies, knowing I like good movies, he doesn’t. Neither do I when I ask him out, which happens fairly often. When there’s a direct cost to me, which doesn’t result in anything except benefiting him, such as paying for dinner, he sometimes thanks me. When we’re out bicycling and he offers to carry the backpack, I thank him.

On some level, we both benefit from our unselfishness. He goes out with me more when I pay for him, because he wouldn’t have the money for it otherwise, and I’m more motivated for bicycling longer distances (the last short trip was 90+km a day, plus walking for 2+ hours in the middle, and I’m not the athletic type) when I’m not tired from wearing a backpack. But there’s a more direct cost, in that I’m shorter of money and he’s shorter of breath as a result.

I don’t know, I’m getting the impression you’re thinking of men’s problems as taking away some social share of mind from the problems that “really” matter.

I think in some cases men’s and women’s problems are opposite and require solutions that are directly against the interest of the other. An example are the many men who find it oppressive that women sometimes shy away from them or seem to try to avoid them, while many women find it oppressive that men are sometimes getting too close to them. I fully realised how incompatible my goals are to alleged male equality when someone at NSWATM linked to a youtube video of a commercial about racism, where an older white woman at a bench withdrew from a younger black man who sat down right next to her.

The issue is that I would have drawn away from any stranger placing themselves that close to me on an otherwise empty bench. So would everyone I’ve asked. But because the older woman withdrew from a black man, and looked noticeably uncomfortable when he looked at her weirdly for doing it, it was OK to label her racist. I realised that my sense of personal space (and that of every other Dane I’ve met, barring a couple with developmental disorders) is bigger than others, and that giving myself that space by withdrawing is considered misandrist by a good deal of people men interested in men’s rights. I also realised that I often quickened my pace without thinking about it (because of what went on in my head, not because of any man), and usually shifted my bag away from however was sitting closest to me out of habit.

In fact, having seen what men complained about in regards to women being misandristically afraid of them, men or male sexuality being demonised, male sexuality being viewed as toxic, the alleged fear of men being equated with the fear behind the Jim Crow laws etc., I realised that my very existence was misandry, and that the only way I could truly stop making men feel miserable over how I was oppressing them would be to kill myself. There’s no way I can live in a world where I need to always remember to keep the same pace when there’s a man in the vicinity, where I can never withdraw from a place if there’s a man next to me, and where I can never show discomfort around other people if any of them are male.

So I thought about it and chose life. Imo, as long as someone is not infringing on you (talking to you, moving closer to you, starring at you, making faces aimed at you etc.) or anyone else, you need to let them be. And sometimes you just have to accept that they’ll walk faster when you’re around them, and it may be because they’re fearing a potential assault from you, or it may be because they just happened to walk faster at the time, but either way, it’s really none of your business. If they’re really misandric (in the sense of hating men, not in the sense of being Danish and being around men), you’ll notice when you interact with them, or when they express their opinions, and you can confront them there. Policing women’s walking speed and facial expressions is not the answer. In that aspect, I’m firmly against men’s rights, because they infringe too much on women’s.

But I’m still hoping that more and more people will realize that women’s and men’s problems mostly aren’t separable issues, and cannot and should not be treated in isolation. But that also implies that those who hold the power of definition in those discourses accept rival outside perspectives to be included on par with other perspectives.

The problem here is that we disagree where it begins. Remember when I said that there was an imbalance, but it wasn’t sexual, it was in everything else (such as many men believing that their friendship was so infinitely more precious than a woman’s friendship that being friends with a woman was doing her a favour for which she owed them sex)? That men were valued so much more than women in almost all aspects of life that many women felt sexual value was the only value they had left, causing them to withhold it because they needed it as a tool?

That’s an example of me acknowledging that men’s and women’s problems are connected, but you never acknowledged it. You believe the problem is that women have artificially inflated their own sexual value and deflated men’s, and that we need to make women more appreciative of it when men show them sexual attention, and show some more in return, whereas I believe the problem is more connected to the way we rarely see women valued for anything except their sexual appeal to men.

Another example is this post as The Pervocracy about the way women are told that men are sexually uncontrollable, and therefore can’t be expected to stop once sex has started, even if you ask them to. The comments include women sharing their experiences about being told that men just couldn’t help themselves and having boyfriends refuse to stop even when they (the women) were in pain. But lo and behold, the last comment is predictably by a guy complaining about “man-bashing” and saying that women being afraid of men disgusts him, not because of any women’s rights issue, but because it’s so hard for him to suspect that many women would be cautious around him.

As Cliff summed up to him “You’re afraid women will prejudge you. Women are afraid men will rape them”. That’s how it always seems to go. Women have negative experiences with men, men have negative experiences with women having negative experiences with men. And they seem to believe the solution is for women to ignore their negative experiences with men, because it’s making other men feel bad. Somehow, they always want to stop the negative spiral in the middle, not at the root.

It’s ironic that you and Hugh always seem to paint feminists as being focussed on some hypothetical (and unachievable) future, while PUAs are dealing with the real world, because to me, the issue of women being afraid of men and male sexuality is very much dealing with the real world. It would be wonderful if there was no reason for women to be cautious, but that’s a goal for a future utopia, not something we can reasonably achieve here and now. Until we can remove those reasons for caution, we need to deal with the reality, which is that a lot of our ideas about male sexuality are toxic, and a lot of men are emulating those ideas, including the PUAs in the OP.

This is interesting. I’m not sure what different realities you’re referring to – I wonder if our realities aren’t potentially closer to each other’s than to that of other commenters given that we’re both from Europe and non-native English speakers. How can eyou not see how it is relevant to your point?

Perhaps the fact that both of us are communicating in a foreign language is escalating the issue? Also, categorising being “from Europe” as cause for agreement is pretty Americano-centric, similar to categorising Africa as a big country instead of a diverse continent. Europe consists of several individual countries and many of them can easily have more in common with the USA than with each other. I agree that Denmark and Germany are probably culturally closer to each other than to the USA, but that’s because they’re neighbours, not because they’re both European.

In regards to living in different realities, I often feel that you’re not actually responding to my posts but to something completely different, and I have trouble figuring out how you got to that place based on what I wrote. And then there are the issues you raise about how impossible it is to connect with women. Since I know several men who never had that issue, never needed PUA advice, and still manage to be perfectly respectful, even feminist, about women’s boundaries, I simply don’t get it, and there are no one in my surroundings I can ask about it.

As for the kissing thing, it definitely means something. It means that you appear to prefer a behaviour that is higher risk than explicit communication, for both the initiator and yourself. And it means that you would prefer the initiator to act in a situation of higher relative uncertainty about your preferences.

I don’t think there’s much uncertainty about it. Usually, it’s a question of moving closer and closer to each other and mutually escalating. Or of having already discussed our mutual attraction and boundaries. I like those. What I don’t like are the parts where the guy is moving closer and closer even though you’re not reciprocating and are even sometimes withdrawing, and then decides to escalate to kissing. When it comes to kissing, things tend to be clear from the previous interactions already.

That being said, I wouldn’t mind if we made it a norm to ask first. I think I’d view it a lot more positively (and view not asking a lot more negatively) if it was a standard norm, instead of something guys did mainly when they were extremely insecure and/or couldn’t tell if you’re interested (which in my case usually means I’m not). It has a lot more to do with type than with the actual action. But again, I’d rather be asked first than be kissed without mutual escalation.

To have to highlight the existence of dissent in a PUA forum would be to suggest that is is worse than those environments. This goes to the priority point as well.

I don’t agree with your framing at all. Discussing dissent in the PUA forum, on the very subject of abuse that PUAs are criticized for, is not only necessary for reasons of fairness and accuracy, but also for showing dissident PUAs that their efforts are recognized, and there are spaces and support for them outside the community. Discussing this dissent does not need to compete with other important priorities.

My words were stating that the objections were comparatively minor, given the kind of condemnation that I have consistently stated, from the beginning of this thread, is needed. That isn’t the same as minimizing the objectors.

Well, you fooled me.

Your repeated mention of this, though, is what I mean by the tokenization. I actually find the “why not just roofie them if you’re in such a hurry?” comment, which I noted in #63, to be just as representative, and it was posted earlier as well (Jan. 4, 2011).

Yes, I picked the example that people here would get, and hopefully be relatively less defensive about. Call that “tokenization,” or whatever you want. If I thought I could get the “roofie” jibe across as an example of dissent and a rape callout, and that I wouldn’t get bogged down by a long thread of people arguing about its meaning, then I would have brought it up. I’m glad that you brought it up, and that you agree that it was most likely a form of dissent.

Still, this thread missed something big, a callout of rape which influences the picture of complicity in the community. Knowing that there is a percentage of PUAs who recognize those practices as rape is one thing (and it would indeed be depressing if that was in doubt), but seeing them actually speaking up is especially significant in a discussion of complicity.

When I raised this issue originally, you did engage with the subject, and I appreciate that. AB, however, wanted to make a swipe at me way later in the thread for not being a “decent person” because I raised the dissent rather than condemning the RSD thread in the way she considered appropriate.

WRT Thomas’ comment, I don’t have a problem with his reaction — I wouldn’t expect someone to stay calm when initially encountering this. And with AB’s comment, it wasn’t that the RSD thread was what PUAs generally do, it was that it wasn’t shocking, or so different from what PUAs usually do, phrased elsewhere as not surprising

I don’t have a problem with Thomas’ reaction… and I don’t really agree with it. I think you are being a bit too charitable to AB’s comment… and that’s your prerogative.

What I am trying to explain is why I gave the level of condemnation I gave (without feeling comfortable processing the rest of my condemnation in this thread), and why I thought the dissent and rape callout was worth the emphasis I placed on it… and that maybe I can take this stance while being a decent person.

So, I hope you understand a bit better where I was coming from in my discussion with you, and how it was so easy for us to be talking past each other.

What that suggests is that the connection isn’t between the thread and pickup theory, but between the thread and a noticeable percentage of those who are interested in acquiring and influencing it, which should be a matter of concern to those in the community.

That’s an excellent point, which I would have welcomed earlier than three-hundred comments in.

I’ve given you my advice.

Your advice is noted. I think you will be heartened to know that in discussions in other spaces where there is a less prosecutorial attitude towards PUAs, and where I don’t feel like I need to take the role of defense lawyer, my approach to discussing pickup is different.

In regards to you believing that people (or specifically Infra and I) don’t sufficiently acknowledge the existence of dissent, I have to second Infra seconding me. A certain degree of dissent is almost always present, especially in larger communities and open online boards. It’s my baseline assumption, it’s what I’d expect from the Stormfront website. Highlighting it as especially significant makes the SC look worse, not better. And as Infra pointed out, the dissenting voice you’ve chosen to highlight appeared on the very last page several months after the OP, and only after the discussion had already quieted down considerably.

And in regards to my statement that the RSD thread was not shocking or so different from what PUAs usually do, I stand by it. As I said earlier, all behaviour takes place on a continuum. On a scale on 1-10, the SRD is only a couple of points away from a lot a other PUA material (and that’s not counting the PUAs-who-aren’t-representative-of-PUAs I mentioned earlier, most of whom are just as misogynist and rape-positive as the RSD posters). Most PUA material I’ve seen, including the more moderate/mainstream that Clarisse has linked to, tend to display certain tendencies:

1: An belief in and adherence to a (partial misrepresentation of a) very specific branch of evolutionary psychology which can best be described as male supremacist. This include an othering of women, who’re assumed to work according to completely different principles than men.

2: A narrow focus on a small subset of women (of the type who tend to put far more work into fitting standard gender-norms than average) in specific environments, combined with a generalisation of the whole female sex based only on said subset.

3: A belief that women are inherently dishonest and/or unknowing of their real desires, and that it therefore falls to men to explain the ‘female code’ to each other, ignoring input from any women who don’t currently agree. Men, in contrast, are thought to be uncomplicated and logical. Even you have expressed that belief, talking about women (deliberately or not) misrepresenting what they want, while always seeming willing to take men’s statements about themselves at face value.

4: A framing of the pursuit of sex as being adversarial, with the PUA using stuff like negative hits to circumvent the bitch-shield of his target, combined with an extensive focus on shifting power away from the woman.

5: A justification of 4, using the beliefs from 3 (and 1), where any success with a woman is framed as resulting from appealing to her innermost desires (rather than managing to trick or pressure her into something she’s not comfortable with), and any rejection is framed as not managing to penetrate her defences like she secretly wishes you to (rather than you just not being appealing to her). The OP is a very direct example: “i feel good about it, cause in the end girls like to be outsmarted and physically and mentally dominated”, but even mainstream stuff, like insisting that a woman chasing after a strange man to prove her attractiveness to him is a sign of high self-esteem on her part, not to mention the infamous examples of PUAs who believe “Go away, I’m not interested” can safely be assumed to be a shit-test they’re supposed to ignore, make use of this belief.

6: A tendency to present sexual access to women as a criteria of success within homosocial contexts as least as much (if not more than) as an end onto itself, contributing to a view of women as status-objects and placing a large burden on them to bolster male egos. A moderate example is the amount of bragging taking place on PUA boards, and the tendency to use a lack of sexual prowess to shame other men, while an extreme example is Roosh saying that he’s happy about having trouble orgasming, because it makes his lovers insecure about their own attractiveness, which means he can easier treat them like shit. Granted, that’s more about power over women than influence with men (though I think they’re connected), but it’s definitely not about sex any more.

7: A huge overestimation of the power women wield, especially sexually, combined with (or caused by, or causing) a severe lack of empathy and acknowledgement of the difficulties women face, except when said difficulties can be used to justify PUA ideology (which means an acknowledgement of slut-shaming, slut-shaming, slut-shaming, slut-shaming, slut-shaming, and nothing else). Linked somewhat to 3, in that women are often assumed to be in the know about whatever is going on.

This leads to an obsession with power and is used as an excuse for the renunciation of responsibility on the part of men (since they’re just doing what women made them do). Combined with 1, it’s one of the main reasons techniques aiming at giving the man social dominance are encouraged, because they’re viewed as merely correcting a perceived imbalance. Eurosambra’s claim from this thread: “I don’t have any experience of situations where women DON’T have total social control of the interaction, text and subtext” is an example of this line of thought showing up even among more moderate PUAs. It’s especially ironic because (I believe) he’s Israeli, a country where women are routinely treated as sub-human.

8: And finally, it’s all combined into an extensive victim-mentality (heavily influenced especially by issue 6 and 7), where everything gone wrong in the PUAs’ lives are attributed to women, any choice on the part of a woman which could be even the least bit inconvenient for a man is construed as oppression (or bitchiness for the sake of bitchiness), and any amount of male powerlessness (even, or maybe especially, a lack of power over women) is viewed as catastrophic. This is common even in moderate PUA material. In Clarisse’s interview with Mark Manson, he talks about most PUAs having absent father-figures and mentions “a generation of men with low self-worth and no strong male role models, the slow blurring of gender roles spurred by feminism, the ability for masses to congregate on the internet, and then this whole PUA thing as a toxic reaction to all of the above.”

The thing is, the last study I checked comparing the sons of lesbian couples who made sure the boy had a male rolemodel, lesbian couples who didn’t, and heterosexual couples, didn’t find any differences in self-esteem or general adjustment. As long as the parents were well-functioning and loving, the children tended to be too, regardless of gender. But of course, the real explanation must be that men have special man-needs which are somehow addressed by patriarchal societies but nowhere else (while women either have no such needs, or have their needs met already), so the existence of dysfunctional men can be attributed to women and/or feminism. While Manson also talks about “growing pains, an uncomfortable transitional period” and don’t seem to want to go back, his viewpoint can still be boiled down to the unfortunate “Once men were more happy, confident, and well-adjusted. Then women got rights”. And he’s unusually egalitarian for a PUA.

As an example of double-standards and hard demands on women, I believe it was you who once linked to a post about “female hypergamy” where the author defined it as women wanting/needing their male lovers to surpass them in some way, to have some trait they could admire or look up to, be it appearance, money, power, artistic talent, etc., and compared it to men preferring young, beautiful women, stating that men shouldn’t blame women for their hypergamy. The framing in itself was interesting, because what he was basically saying was that men were homogeneous and looked only at two criteria (youth and beauty), while women had diverse preferences (many of which, are much less transitional than youth and beauty), meaning that as long as a man had something going for him, there would a woman out there who was attracted to it.

This notion is incredibly empowering for men, and the exact opposite for women, and yet the commenters kept making it about women’s unreasonable behaviour (and considering the definition of hypergamy in the article, said behaviour seemed to consist merely of women having preferences), and talked about the need to control women’s sexuality. Heck, the last person I saw linking to that article did exactly that, basically presenting it as “Look at what we men have to put up with! Hypergamy is such a problem!”. And that article was one of your own examples. In the thread from the OP, we have a much more direct example: “and then when you’re done with her, you just like grab all her clothes an then throw em at her, then shout get out you fucking whore. women deserve this because of what they’ve done to us”.

The point of all this is that the reason I’m not surprised a major PUA board endorsing rape, is that many PUAs, even mainstream ones, even you on occasion (when your views collide with those of PUAs), have displayed traits and opinions which are heavily linked to male supremacy, misogyny, and tolerance of interpersonal and sexual violence (and also homophobia, femmephobia, and a whole bunch of other issues).

I mean, when Christian fundamentalists talk extensively about the need for the husband to be the lord of the house, even if it’s framed as being done for the purpose of protecting women, are you actually surprised when it turns out a lot of them are willing to excuse marital rape? And do you really think there’s no connection between extensive talk about how “immigrants are stealing our jobs”, ethnic slurs, and immigrants being discriminated or assaulted?

I’m not talking about “All Ys are Xs, therefore all Xs are Ys”, but rather“All Ys are Xs, therefore a population of Xs is bound to contain more Ys than the norm”, or perhaps more like “The presence of X means a decent chance of Y, therefore a population of several thousands of Xs is likely to contain a large amount of Ys” or “Xs are unusually tolerant of Ys, therefore Ys are likely to congregate around Xs”. And that’s not even getting into X being problematic in itself, or X usually being the starting point for developing into Y.

AB, however, wanted to make a swipe at me way later in the thread for not being a “decent person” because I raised the dissent rather than condemning the RSD thread in the way she considered appropriate.

From what I recall, that remark was not made in response to you. But yes, I believe that “Let’s focus on what went wrong and how we can change/oppose it” is a much better reply than “Let’s focus on how it wasn’t all that bad”.

But I guess it depends on what one expects. I always expect a certain amount of disagreement in any group that isn’t heavily moderated, so I don’t think it’s worth obsessing over, unless the dissenting opinion threatens the community. I think it’s obvious that “This community endorses rape” doesn’t mean “Each and every person in this community endorses rape and no one speaks out against it”, but rather “The general consensus of this community is that rape is OK, with statements endorsing rape being both more frequent and more frequently supported than statement against it”.

On the other hand, I don’t expect people to automatically agree with statements like “Knowingly having sex with someone against their will is rape, and it’s wrong”, because I’ve read enough about the subject to know that most people believe that victims often bring it upon themselves, or that it doesn’t count unless a stranger severely physically damages the victim or forces the victim to have sex at gunpoint. So I find stating it again and again, and challenging endorsement of rape whenever it shows up, to be a necessity, because even if I take it for granted that rape is wrong, a lot of onlookers probably don’t.